MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220761110 · doi:10.2118/208965-ms

Cyclic Solvent Process Commercial Optimization

2022· article· en· W4220761110 on OpenAlexaff
Xu Gong, Hossein Shahandeh, Gordon Maclsaac, H. Motahhari, Mark Beckman, Lu Dong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationScheduleInteger programmingGenetic algorithmKey (lock)Process (computing)Linear programmingSet (abstract data type)PrioritizationDecoupling (probability)Performance indicatorOperations researchIndustrial engineeringEngineeringProcess managementAlgorithmMathematicsControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cyclic Solvent Process (CSP) is a non-thermal solvent-based heavy oil recovery technology that was invented and developed by Imperial Oil Resources Limited through a multi-year integrated research program. The commercial viability of potential development concepts and their associated uncertainties are also an active area of investigation. A key input to an economic model is the global (or development level) flow stream. The conventional approach of developing the global flow stream involves the determination of well schedule through a well prioritization algorithm that adheres to a set of flow stream capacity constraints. The resulting flow streams can then be passed to an economic tool to evaluate a set of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) in an uncoupled manner. One of the main challenges encountered in this approach is that it is difficult to optimize the overall economic performance due to (1) the absence of well-defined objective function, (2) the decoupling of the flow stream generation and the economic calculations, (3) the pre-defined characteristics of the well prioritization algorithm. The main objective of this study is to develop a mathematical optimization model for CSP commercial projects. A two-stage optimization framework, which integrates Genetic Algorithm (GA) as master optimizer and Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) as sub-optimizer, is described. A conceptual commercial scenario is simulated as a case study and economic uplift is demonstrated.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207