Geomechanics in Integrated Reservoir Modeling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geomechanics in Integrated Reservoir Modeling Antonin Settari; Antonin Settari U. of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Vikram Sen Vikram Sen U. of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 2008. Paper Number: OTC-19530-MS https://doi.org/10.4043/19530-MS Published: May 05 2008 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Settari, Antonin, and Vikram Sen. "Geomechanics in Integrated Reservoir Modeling." Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.4043/19530-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsOffshore Technology ConferenceOTC Offshore Technology Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractThis paper will discuss the current state of reservoir geomechanics and consider several areas of reservoir development and management where geomechanical influences are important. In order to better integrate our workflows, coupled simulation is often used to exchange parameters between individual modules that are typically run in standalone mode for reservoir flow simulation, seismic modeling or geomechanical modeling. This paper will discuss coupled geomechanics and flow simulation to illustrate several impacts of reservoir depletion (e.g. compaction and subsidence, stress arching in the overburden and casing shear in the wells) and examine the connection between geomechanics and geophysics and areas where coupling of these disciplines can benefit exploration and production. Two generic examples are presented - one representing North Sea chalk reservoirs and the other representing deepwater turbidites.Reservoir compaction and resulting subsidence are well known examples of geomechanical behavior. During depletion, the reservoir pressures decrease and effective stresses increase. The rocks deform through a combination of elastic (recoverable) and inelastic (permanent) strain, with plastic deformation occurring primarily as the stresses increase beyond the compaction limit or "collapse" stress. The deformation creates a "compaction drive" (additional pressure support) in the reservoir that can improve recovery. However, one must also deal with the undesirable effects - the environmental impact of subsidence, possible fault reactivation, and integrity of wells crossing faults etc. - and geomechanics allows us to evaluate these effects.In other applications, incorporating geomechanics in the interpretation of repeat 4D seismic surveys improves our ability to isolate and resolve the signatures of variations in fluid saturations. Finally, the primary concern in drilling and completion engineering is wellbore stability during drilling and well integrity during the producing life of the well. The heterogeneity of stress changes in layered reservoirs and overburden due to depletion-induced differential reservoir compaction poses specific technical challenges e.g. casing shear deformation - and geomechanics plays an important role in modeling studies associated with the evaluation of such challenges. Keywords: otc 19530, compaction, reservoir geomechanics, settari, porosity, offshore technology conference, deformation, underburden, subsidence, overburden Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Reservoir geomechanics This content is only available via PDF. 2008. Offshore Technology Conference You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it