MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044576724 · doi:10.2172/1639323

Petronius Offshore Oil Field Case Study

2020· report· en· W3044576724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vello Kuuskraa, Anne Oudinot, Matt Wallace

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil fieldPetroleum engineeringSubmarine pipelineInjectorField (mathematics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Flood mythOil productionGeologyEngineeringGeographyGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document is one of three offshore post-primary CO2 enhanced oil recovery project case studies that compares the modeling results from an industry standard compositional simulator (“GEM”) and a variant of the FE/NETL CO2 Prophet Model (CO2 Prophet Model), which determined the CO2 Prophet Model was able to reasonably represent the performance of the CO2 flood modeled using the more sophisticated GEM. This case study uses the Petronius oil field J-2 Sand using a quarter of a five-spot pattern design (one CO2 injector well and five production wells), for a 40-year injection scenario. A version of the CO2 Prophet Model is available on NETL’s website under the Collection Name: FE/NETL CO2 Prophet Model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207