Accelerated optimization of CO2-miscible water-alternating-gas injection in carbonate reservoirs using production data-based parameterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enhancing oil recovery in reservoirs with light oil and high gas content relies on optimizing the miscible water alternating gas (WAG) injection profile. However, this can be costly and time-consuming due to computationally demanding compositional simulation models and numerous other well control variables. This study introduces WAGeq, a novel approach that expedites the convergence of the optimization algorithm for miscible water alternating gas (WAG) injection in carbonate reservoirs. The WAGeq leverages production data to create flexible solutions that maximize the net present value (NPV) of the field, while providing practical implementation of individual WAG profiles for each injector. The WAGeq utilizes an injection priority index to rank the wells and determine which should inject water or gas at each time interval. The index is built using a parametric equation that considers factors such as producer and injector relationship, water cut (WCUT), gas–oil ratio (GOR), and wells cumulative gas production, to induce desirable effects on production and WAG profile. To evaluate WAGeq’s effectiveness, two other approaches were compared: a benchmark solution named WAGbm, in which the injected fluid is optimized for each well over time, and a traditional baseline strategy with fixed 6-month WAG cycles. The procedures were applied to a synthetic simulation case (SEC1_2022) with characteristics of a Brazilian pre-salt carbonate field with karstic formations and high CO2 content. The WAGeq outperformed the baseline procedure, improving the NPV by 6.7% or 511 USD million. Moreover, WAGeq required fewer simulations (less than 350) than WAGbm (up to 2000), while delivering a slightly higher NPV. The terms of the equation were also found to be essential for producing a WAG profile with regular patterns on each injector, resulting in a more practical solution. In conclusion, WAGeq significantly reduces computational requirements while creating consistent patterns across injectors, which are crucial factors to consider when planning a practical WAG strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".