MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366778528 · doi:10.4043/32263-ms

Digital Twin Provides Virtual Multiphase Flow Metering and Leak Detection to Deepwater Operations for Operational Decision Making on Liwan Field

2023· article· en· W4366778528 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Zhou, Tony Li, Morten Espeland, Onno Van Wolfswinkel, Kjetil Havre

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowSubseaComputer scienceField (mathematics)Systems engineeringEngineeringMarine engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents lessons learned over eight years of using the first digital twin in the South China Sea by Cenovus Energy and China National Oil Company (CNOOC) on the Liwan Field. The digital twin provides a collaboration platform for integrated operations and is based on dynamic multi-phase flow simulation models for wells, flowlines and slug catchers, coupled to live field measurements. One of the main objectives of the digital twin is to provide continuous real-time virtual instrumentation, as well as aggregated information related to flow assurance and integrity management with a novel multidimensional model-based leak detection workflow. The digital twin workflows enable operators to better prepare and respond to planned and unplanned events in the field and to analyze and optimize performance of the field, in combination with a data analytics tool. Subsea wet gas flow meters (WGFM) in the field initially provided flow rate information to deep water operations in line with the operational strategy. After one year in production, a reduction in WGFM performance was observed. A mitigation strategy was developed to use the digital twin flow rate calculations combined with the remaining WGFMs for improved operational decision making.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207