MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323655355 · doi:10.2118/212756-ms

Dynamic Surrogate Model for Oil Production Rates Prediction in SAGD Processes

2023· article· en· W4323655355 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. L. Guevara, Japan Trivedi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingContext (archaeology)CovarianceComputer scienceNonlinear systemSurrogate modelProcess (computing)Time horizonMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we propose a novel framework for the identification of a dynamic surrogate model (DSM) that can offer a fast and effective prediction of time-varying outputs (e.g., oil rates) of a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage process. In the framework, the prediction at any given time consists of the addition of two components: a base model plus a correction term. The former is represented by a conventional one-step forecast nonlinear model(s) used recursively to make n-steps ahead forecast. The latter is modeled error term, rationalized under the assumption that the forecast error given by the base model is correlated with time due to the recursive strategy used. Since at every time step the input to the one-step forecast model is the prediction made by the same model in the previous time step, so an error accumulation is expected as the prediction time increases. This is analogous to the well-known geostatistical Kriging method, in which the basic assumption is that prediction errors are not constant, rather they are correlated with distance, and as a result, they can be modeled separately using covariance models. The identification of the base and correction model follows the typical surrogate model framework, i.e., design of experiments, evaluation of the samples, and construction of the models. In the context of DSM, the design of experiments represents the random selection of a set of steam injection policies in the preestablished production horizon. For each of these samples, a corresponding oil production rate time series is obtained using a reservoir simulation model; this model was built using publicly available data from Norther Alberta SAGD implementations. Afterwards, the base model and correction term are identified using Long-Short Term Memory neural networks. Results show that DSM significantly outperforms the conventional one-step forecast nonlinear models used recursively. In particular DSM offers, a significant increase of median R2 value of over 0.88 and a reduction of the median and standard deviation of Mean Absolute Percentage Error of over 67.0% and 80.1%, respectively. These results suggest that DSM is able to offer effective (low error and high R2) and efficient (relatively low number of samples) to identifying computationally inexpensive surrogate models for the prediction of time-varying outputs. Furthermore, the framework holds promise to be useful in SAGD optimization efforts, such as, finding the optimal steam injection policy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207