Model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 12085687
  • Patent Number
    12,085,687
  • Date Filed
    Monday, January 10, 2022
    3 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 10, 2024
    4 months ago
  • CPC
    • G01V20/00
    • G06F30/27
    • G06F30/28
    • G06N20/00
    • G06F2113/08
  • Field of Search
    • CPC
    • G01V99/005
    • G06F30/27
    • G06F30/28
    • G06F2113/08
    • G06N20/00
    • E21B47/10
    • E21B41/00
    • G01F1/74
  • International Classifications
    • G01V20/00
    • G06F30/27
    • G06F30/28
    • G06N20/00
    • G06F113/08
    • Term Extension
      218
Abstract
A computer-implemented method for constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting is described. The method includes predicting instantaneous flow rates and forecasting future target flow rates and well dynamics. The method includes constructing a virtual sensing model trained using forecasted target flow rates and well dynamics. The method includes building a constrained forecasting model by combining unconstrained flow forecasting models, well dynamics models, and virtual sensing models, wherein the constrained forecasting model forecasts multi-phase flow rates.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

This disclosure relates generally to forecasting flow rates, and more particularly to forecasting multi-phase flow rates with machine learning.


BACKGROUND

Generally, a multi-phase flow includes oil, gas, and water flow and is frequently encountered in the production of oil and gas. Accurate multi-phase flow rate measurement plays a significant role in production optimization from oil and gas fields, especially in an offshore environment. In addition, production forecasts can provide important information to significantly influence field development planning and economic evaluation, including production optimization, rate allocation, reservoir management and predict the future performance of the field.


SUMMARY

An embodiment described herein provides a computer-implemented method for model constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting. The method includes forecasting future target flow rates using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates. The method also includes forecasting auxiliary sensor data using trained well dynamics models. Further, the method includes constructing virtual sensing models trained using predicted target flow rates and well dynamics, wherein the virtual sensing model predicts real-time multi-phase flow rates. The method includes building a constrained forecasting model by combining the unconstrained flow forecasting models, well dynamics models, and virtual sensing models, wherein the constrained forecasting model forecasts multi-phase flow rates.


An embodiment described herein provides an apparatus comprising a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations. The operations include forecasting future target flow rates using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates. The operations also include forecasting auxiliary sensor data using trained well dynamics models. Further, the operations include constructing virtual sensing models trained using predicted target flow rates and well dynamics, wherein the virtual sensing model predicts real-time multi-phase flow rates. The operations include building a constrained forecasting model by combining the unconstrained flow forecasting models, well dynamics models, and virtual sensing models, wherein the constrained forecasting model forecasts multi-phase flow rates.


An embodiment described herein provides a system comprising one or more memory modules and one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules. The one or more hardware processors are configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory models to perform operations. The operations include forecasting future target flow rates using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates. The operations also include forecasting auxiliary sensor data using trained well dynamics models. Further, the operations include constructing virtual sensing models trained using predicted target flow rates and well dynamics, wherein the virtual sensing model predicts real-time multi-phase flow rates. The operations include building a constrained forecasting model by combining the unconstrained flow forecasting models, well dynamics models, and virtual sensing models, wherein the constrained forecasting model forecasts multi-phase flow rates.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is an illustration of a workflow that enables model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with a machine learning approach.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an unconstrained flow forecasting model.



FIG. 3 is an illustration of flow rate production over time.



FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a well dynamics forecasting model.



FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a virtual flow metering model.



FIG. 6 is an illustration of production flow rate ground truth label and model predictions made using a virtual flow metering model.



FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating model-constrained flow forecasting.



FIG. 8 is an illustration of model-constrained flow forecasting over time.



FIG. 9 is a process flow diagram of a process for model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with a machine learning approach.



FIG. 10 is a schematic illustration of an example controller (or control system) for model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning according to the present disclosure.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments described herein enable model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning approach. In particular, the present techniques estimate flow rates (for example, oil/water/gas flow rates) and forecast production rates using flow models combined with well dynamics models. The virtual flow metering according to the present techniques incorporates the internal changes in various formation and fluid factors as well as external influences due to manual operations. Internal changes in formation and fluid factors generally refers to the internal characteristics of each well, such as geological heterogeneity of the reservoir, well structure, boundary conditions, fluid properties, and the like. The internal characteristics of the wells vary from well to well, but are not directly impacted by manual operations. The external influences refer to the operation management events and manual operations, such as gas injection, choke valve, and the like. Traditional models generally do not provide combined multi-phase flow estimation and forecasting in a model-constrained manner, using machine learning.



FIG. 1 is an illustration of a workflow 100 that enables model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning. Generally, the models and algorithms according to the present techniques enable predicting and forecasting multi-phase flow rates to assist production planning and optimization. The system consists of flow models 102, well dynamics models 104, virtual sensing models 106, and flow forecasting 108. The flow models 102, well dynamics models 104, virtual sensing models 106, and flow forecasting 108 are individually executable for each of their respective purposes. In embodiments, the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106, and flow forecasting 108 are combined as an integrated artificial intelligence based virtual flow metering system. Flow models 102 include unconstrained forecasting of flow rates. The flow models 102 directly forecast multi-phase flow rates and build models from historical flow rates. The well dynamics model 104 forecasts well dynamics directly from auxiliary sensor data. The well dynamics model 104 is built using historical sensor data. The virtual sensing model 106 enables virtual flow metering. The virtual sensing model 106 predicts instantaneous multi-phase flow rates. In some examples, the predicted instantaneous multi-phase flow rates are at a current time. In some examples, the virtual sensing model can predict flow rates from the sensor measurements forecasting at a future time with the forecasting of well dynamics model. Models are built from historical and/or forecast previous time data. Forecast previous time data includes estimates associated with a previous time. Generally, flow forecasting 108 enables model-constrained flow forecasting. In particular, multi-phase flow rates are forecast with constraints from models built using historical data or forecast previous time data. In embodiments, virtual flow metering models are inferred using flow models 102 and well dynamics model 104 as an input to a virtual sensing model 106.


In embodiments, the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106, and flow forecasting 108 of FIG. 1 are executed individually for each of the respective purposes. Alternatively, or additionally, the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106, and flow forecasting 108 operate together as an integrated artificial intelligence (AI) based virtual flow metering system. The models used are selected according to a particular use case. In a first example, in resource-limited or low data availability/quality scenarios a flow rate forecasting application based on flow models 102 may be more feasible to business stakeholder when compared to full virtual flow metering from the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106, and flow forecasting 108. Thus, unconstrained forecasting using the flow models 102 provides a viable solution to determine individual flow rates. In a second example, virtual flow metering is implemented by a business stakeholder as the constantly and lively monitored flow rates are the major focus. In this example, unconstrained forecasting using the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, and virtual sensing model 106 provides real time monitoring of multi-phase flows. In a third example with resource-rich and high-data availability/quality scenarios, flow forecasting 108 (based on the flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106) includes a high-confident flow rates forecasting application that aligns with the underlying well dynamics model. In this example, flow models 102, well dynamics model 104, virtual sensing model 106, and flow forecasting 108 together provide a complete solution. In embodiments, the constrained models obtained by flow forecasting 108 be generated using various inputs. In an example, the constrained models are built using modeled historical sensor data (for example, data output by a well dynamics model). In another example, the constrained models are built using both modeled historical sensor data and modeled historical flow rates (for example, data output by a flow model). In embodiments, a constrained model based on historical sensor data is built to focus on flow rates monitoring. A constrained model based on both modeled historical sensor data and modeled historical flow rates provides complete virtual flow metering and forecasting.


Generally, oil and gas production is affected by various factors, such as complexity of geological and reservoir data, dynamic operation management events, and rapid production rate changes due to development method diversity and manual interference. As a result, accurate production forecasting is complicated and challenging. Traditional techniques for building well production forecasting models suffer from requiring extensive domain knowledge. These techniques also do not have much flexibility due to their basis on complex reservoir and multiphase flow physics. Traditional techniques include numerical simulation models, analytical techniques, and decline curve analysis (DCA) models.


Numerical simulation models seek to fully describe the geological heterogeneity of the reservoir and can generally provide good results. However, the models are often tedious and time-consuming to build, where building generally involves establishing a reservoir geological model, numerical model, and history matching. Numerical simulation models also require various types of information and data about formation and multiphase flow fluid, such as logging, permeability, porosity, and saturation, which may not be available in reality or may be unreliable when available. Analytical techniques simplify complex reservoir models based on some assumptions regarding formation heterogeneity, well structure, boundary conditions and normal operation conditions. However, these analytical assumptions and results may not match those with actual production changes, especially frequent manual operations and dynamically varying underground multi-phase flow. Additionally, information regarding the correct formation and fluid data often requires long-lasting and expensive physical experiments. DCA models involve matching actual historical production rate/time data with a model, such as an exponential, harmonic, or hyperbolic model. The matched models conceptually fit abstract curves without considering the actual formation factors in general. Hence, it is difficult to guarantee the correct performance using DCA models.


In embodiments, the present techniques process production data as time series data. Machine learning, data-driven techniques are applied to time-series forecasting related applications. In embodiments, the time series analysis methods extract hidden information from historical data to predict future behavior of well production. The extracted information is combined with the reservoir and geological model and operation interferences. In some examples, the extracted hidden information includes a pattern of the time series, trend, seasonality, cycles, signal/noise ratio, frequency spectrum, similarity, etc. In some examples, the geological model may include formations, locations, rock properties, etc. Additionally, in examples the operation interferences includes operation management events and manual operations, such as gas injection, choke valve, etc. The present techniques use flow models 102 and a well dynamics model 104 as input to a virtual sensing model 106. Flow forecasting 108 is based on the virtual sensing model 106 constructed from historical and/or forecasted time data.


The block diagram of FIG. 1 is not intended to indicate that the workflow 100 is to include all of the components shown in FIG. 1. Rather, the workflow 100 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 1 (for example, additional models, sensor data, and the like). The workflow 100 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation. Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the workflow 100 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in a processor. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in a processor, in logic implemented in a specialized graphics processing unit, or in any other device.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an unconstrained flow forecasting model 200. The flow model 200 may be, for example, a flow model 102 of FIG. 1. Generally, the flow model 200 enables unconstrained flow forecasting. Unconstrained refers to building the flow models to forecast target flow rates based on flow rate data at present and past time stamps, without constraints from auxiliary data of well dynamics. In the example of FIG. 2, historical flow rates 202 are provided as training data for unconstrained forecasting 204. The historical flow rates 202 include past gas rates, oil rates, and water rates of a well or reservoir. Unconstrained forecasting 204 outputs a forecast of flow rates 206. Unconstrained forecasting 204 is realized using machine learning models trained using historical flow rates. In embodiments, the unconstrained forecasting 204 is based on physics models, machine learning models, or a hybrid of the two. The forecasted flow rates 206 are inferred from the unconstrained forecasting 204. The forecasted flow rates include gas rates, oil rates, and water rates. In some examples, additional post-processing steps, such as smoothing are applied to the forecasted flow rates.


In the example of FIG. 2, one or multiple models are built to forecast the gas/oil/water multi-phase flow rates produced by a well or reservoir, without constraints from auxiliary data or well dynamics (for example, well dynamics model 104 of FIG. 1). The flow forecasting models 200 are trained from historical flow rates 202 of each individual target flow (for example, gas rate, oil rate, water rate), or a combination of selected flows, or all flows. The modeling approach can be based on physics models, machine learning models, or a combination of physics models and machine learning models. In examples, the unconstrained forecasting 204 is based on modeling technology such as Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and its variants, exponential smoothing, DeepAR, and the like. For example, the model can be expressed as ARIMA(p, D, q), where the parameters p, D and q denote the structure of the forecasting model, which is a combination of auto-regression AR(p), moving average MA(q) and differencing degree D. The mathematical formula of the ARIMA (p, D, q) can be described as formula below.








(

1
-




i
=
1

p



φ
i



L
i




)




(

1
-
L

)

D



χ
t


=


(

1
+




i
=
1

q



θ
i



L
i




)




ϵ
t






Where L denotes the lag operator, φi are the parameters of the autoregressive part of the model, θi are the parameters of the MA part, and ϵt are error terms.


The trained models are then inferred on a future time from the training time period to predict the unconstrained target flow rates. In some embodiments, machine learning models (for example ARIMA) enable additional forecasting information associated with the flow rates, such as a prediction of confidence in user-defined intervals. An example of flow rate prediction from the unconstrained flow forecasting model is shown in FIG. 3. FIG. 3 is graph 300 illustrating flow rate production over time. The y-axis 302 provides flow rates while the x-axis 304 provides time.


The block diagram of FIG. 2 is not intended to indicate that the flow model 200 is to include all of the components shown in FIG. 2. Rather, the flow model 200 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 2 (for example, additional flow rates, forecasting, and the like). The flow model 200 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation. Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the flow model 200 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in a processor. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in a processor, in logic implemented in a specialized graphics processing unit, or in any other device.



FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a well dynamics forecasting model 400. The well dynamics forecasting model 400 may be, for example, a well dynamics model 104 of FIG. 1. Generally, the well dynamics model 104 enables well dynamics forecasting. In the example of FIG. 4, historical sensor data 402 are provided as training data for a well dynamics forecasting model 404. The historical sensor data 402 include downhole pressure, downhole temperature, wellhead pressure, and wellhead temperature. The well dynamics forecasting model 404 is realized using machine learning models trained using historical sensor data 402. In embodiments, the well dynamics forecasting 404 is based on physics models, machine learning models, or a hybrid of the two. The forecasted sensor data 206 is inferred from the well dynamics forecasting 404. The forecasted sensor data include same sensors types as training data, for example, downhole pressure, downhole temperature, wellhead pressure, and wellhead temperature.


In the example of FIG. 4, one or multiple models are built to forecast the auxiliary sensor data that represent well dynamics. As used herein, well dynamics refers to data that characterizes physical conditions at a well. Instead of direct measurement of flow rates, the well dynamics model is a collection of well characteristics, such as downhole pressure, downhole temperature, wellhead pressure, wellhead temperature, and the like. In some examples, any sensors available that are related to the well characteristics can be modeled. The forecasting models are trained from historical sensor data 402 of one or more individual target sensors, or a combination of selected sensors, or all sensors. The modeling approach can be based on physics models, machine learning models, or combination of physics models and machine learning models. A few examples of modeling technology include ARIMA and its variants, exponential smoothing, DeepAR, and the like. For example, the model can be expressed as ARIMA(p, D, q), where the parameters p, D and q denote the structure of the forecasting model, which is a combination of auto-regression AR(p), moving average MA(q) and differencing degree D. The mathematical formula of the ARIMA (p, D, q) can be described as formula below.








(

1
-




i
=
1

p



φ
i



L
i




)




(

1
-
L

)

D



χ
t


=


(

1
+




i
=
1

q



θ
i



L
i




)




ϵ
t






Where L denotes the lag operator, φi are the parameters of the autoregressive part of the model, θi are the parameters of the MA part, and ϵt are error terms.


The trained models are then inferred on a future time from the training time period to predict the target sensor data. In some embodiments, machine learning models (for example ARIMA) enable additional forecasting information associated with sensor data, such as a prediction of confidence in user-defined intervals.


The block diagram of FIG. 4 is not intended to indicate that the well dynamics forecasting model 400 is to include all of the components shown in FIG. 4. Rather, the well dynamics forecasting model 400 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 4 (for example, additional sensor data, forecasting, and the like). The well dynamics forecasting model 400 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation. Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the well dynamics forecasting model 400 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in a processor. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in a processor, in logic implemented in a specialized graphics processing unit, or in any other device.



FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a virtual flow metering model 500. The virtual flow metering model 500 may be, for example, a virtual sensing model 106 of FIG. 1. Generally, the virtual sensing model 106 enables virtual flow metering. Virtual flow metering measures, in real time, one or more flow rates without data obtained from a direct, physical measurement of the flow rates. In the example of FIG. 5, the virtual sensing model is built to predict the gas/oil/water multi-phase flow rates into the near future using virtual flow metering (VFM). The VFM model 500 is trained from historical sensor data as input features and historical flow rates as ground truth labels. In examples, the historical flow rates are used to label features extracted from the historical sensor data. The modeling approach is a supervised regression, by either physics-driven modeling such as first principle simulation by a dynamic multi-fluid model (for example, OLGA, and the like), data-driven modeling including machine learning models, or a combination of physics driven modeling and data-driven modeling. A few examples of modeling technology include random forest regression, XGBoost regression, deep fully connected network (DFCN) regression, long short-term memory (LSTM) regression, and the like. In the example of FIG. 5, historical flow rates 502 and historical sensor data 504 are provided as training data to virtual sensing models 506. Virtual sensing 506 is realized using machine learning models such as random forest (RF), XGBoost, DFCN, LTSM, and the like. In embodiments, the virtual sensing 506 is based on physics models, machine learning models, or a hybrid of the two. Flow rates 508 are inferred from the virtual sensing 506. The inferred flow rates include oil, water, and gas flow rates.


The block diagram of FIG. 5 is not intended to indicate that the virtual flow metering model 500 is to include all of the components shown in FIG. 5. Rather, the virtual flow metering model 500 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 5 (for example, additional flow rates, sensor data, forecasting, and the like). The virtual flow metering model 500 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation. Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the virtual flow metering model 500 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in a processor. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in a processor, in logic implemented in a specialized graphics processing unit, or in any other device.



FIG. 6 is an illustration of production flow rate 600 ground truth label and model prediction made using a virtual flow metering model (for example, model 500 of FIG. 5). FIG. 6 is an illustration of true flow rates and predicted flow rates over time. The y-axis 602 provides flow rates while the x-axis 604 provides time. In the example of FIG. 6, the trained model (for example, virtual flow metering model 500) represents a correlation model between the multi-phase flow rates and the auxiliary sensors data, and thus reflects the characteristics of the well performance. It is then inferred on a next time stamp, to predict the instantaneous target flow rates. An example of instantaneous flow rate prediction from the virtual flow metering model 500 is shown in FIG. 6.



FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating a model-constrained flow forecasting model 700. The model-constrained flow forecasting 700 may be, for example, a flow forecasting model 108 of FIG. 1. Generally, the model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 is based on unconstrained forecasting 702 (for example, model 200 of FIG. 2) to generate forecast flow rates 706 and well dynamics 704 (for example, model 400 of FIG. 4) to generate forecast sensor data 708. In the example of FIG. 7, the model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 provides the forecast flow rates 706 and the forecast sensor data 708 as input to trained virtual sensing models 710. Virtual sensing 710 is realized using machine learning models such as random forest (RF), XGBoost, DFCN, LTSM, and the like. In embodiments, the virtual sensing 710 is based on physics models, machine learning models, or a hybrid of the two. Constrained flow rates are inferred from the virtual sensing 710. The inferred constrained flow rates include oil, water, and gas flow rates. In embodiments, the virtually sensed multi-phase flow rates enable constrained forecasting 712 of future multi-phase flow rates as constrained by one or more models.


In the example of FIG. 7, the model-constrained forecasting model 700 is built on top of the other models, i.e. unconstrained flow forecasting models, well dynamics models, and virtual flow metering models, to forecast the gas/oil/water multi-phase flow rates. The outputs of unconstrained flow forecasting models and well dynamics models are combined as input features to the virtual flow metering model. The virtual flow metering model reflects the characteristics of the well performance and constrains the correlation between the forecasted flow rates and sensor data.


The block diagram of FIG. 7 is not intended to indicate that the model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 is to include all of the components shown in FIG. 7. Rather, the model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 7 (for example, additional models, sensor data, and the like). The model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation. Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the virtual flow metering model 700 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in a processor. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in a processor, in logic implemented in a specialized graphics processing unit, or in any other device.



FIG. 8 is a graph 800 illustrating model-constrained flow forecasting over time. The y-axis 802 provides flow rates while the x-axis 804 provides time. In the example of FIG. 8, the workflow of the model-constrained flow forecasting model 700 is inferred on the future time from the training time period, to predict the target flow rates in a model-constrained manner.



FIG. 9 is a process flow diagram of a process 900 for model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning. The process 900 may include the workflow 100 of FIG. 1. In embodiments, the process 900 is implemented using the controller 1000 of FIG. 10.


At block 902, at least one unconstrained flow model is built to forecast target flow rates based on current and historic multi-phase flow data. At block 904, a well dynamics model is built that captures well dynamics (for example, auxiliary sensor data, target sensor data). Generally, the well dynamics models are independent from the unconstrained flow model, and vice versa. In some use cases, only unconstrained forecasting models are applied. At block 906, a virtual sensing model is constructed to predict the gas/oil/water multi-phase flow rates. At block 906, a constrained forecasting model is built by combining the unconstrained flow forecasting model, well dynamics model, and virtual sensing model.


The process flow diagram of FIG. 9 is not intended to indicate that the process 900 is to include all of the steps shown in FIG. 9. Rather, the process 900 can include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 9 (for example, additional micro-containers, applications, and the like). The process 900 of FIG. 9 may include any number of additional components not shown, depending on the details of the specific implementation.



FIG. 10 is a schematic illustration of an example controller 1000 (or control system) for model-constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting with machine learning according to the present disclosure. For example, the controller 1000 may be operable according to the workflow 100 of FIG. 1 or the process 900 of FIG. 9. The controller 1000 is intended to include various forms of digital computers, such as printed circuit boards (PCB), processors, digital circuitry, or otherwise parts of a system for supply chain alert management. Additionally the system can include portable storage media, such as, Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drives. For example, the USB flash drives may store operating systems and other applications. The USB flash drives can include input/output components, such as a wireless transmitter or USB connector that may be inserted into a USB port of another computing device.


The controller 1000 includes a processor 1010, a memory 1020, a storage device 1030, and an input/output interface 1040 communicatively coupled with input/output devices 1060 (for example, displays, keyboards, measurement devices, sensors, valves, pumps). Each of the components 1010, 1020, 1030, and 1040 are interconnected using a system bus 1050. The processor 1010 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the controller 1000. The processor may be designed using any of a number of architectures. For example, the processor 1010 may be a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) processor, a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processor, or a MISC (Minimal Instruction Set Computer) processor.


In one implementation, the processor 1010 is a single-threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor 1010 is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 1010 is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory 1020 or on the storage device 1030 to display graphical information for a user interface on the input/output interface 1040.


The memory 1020 stores information within the controller 1000. In one implementation, the memory 1020 is a computer-readable medium. In one implementation, the memory 1020 is a volatile memory unit. In another implementation, the memory 1020 is a nonvolatile memory unit.


The storage device 1030 is capable of providing mass storage for the controller 1000. In one implementation, the storage device 1030 is a computer-readable medium. In various different implementations, the storage device 1030 may be a floppy disk device, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, or a tape device.


The input/output interface 1040 provides input/output operations for the controller 1000. In one implementation, the input/output devices 1060 includes a keyboard and/or pointing device. In another implementation, the input/output devices 1060 includes a display unit for displaying graphical user interfaces.


There can be any number of controllers 1000 associated with, or external to, a computer system containing controller 1000, with each controller 1000 communicating over a network. Further, the terms “client,” “user,” and other appropriate terminology can be used interchangeably, as appropriate, without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Moreover, the present disclosure contemplates that many users can use one controller 1000 and one user can use multiple controllers 1000.


Implementations of the subject matter and the functional operations described in this specification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, in tangibly embodied computer software or firmware, in computer hardware, including the structures disclosed in this specification and their structural equivalents, or in combinations of one or more of them. Software implementations of the described subject matter can be implemented as one or more computer programs. Each computer program can include one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable computer-storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. Alternatively, or additionally, the program instructions can be encoded in/on an artificially generated propagated signal. The example, the signal can be a machine-generated electrical, optical, or electromagnetic signal that is generated to encode information for transmission to suitable receiver apparatus for execution by a data processing apparatus. The computer-storage medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a random or serial access memory device, or a combination of computer-storage mediums.


The terms “data processing apparatus,” “computer,” and “electronic computer device” (or equivalent as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art) refer to data processing hardware. For example, a data processing apparatus can encompass all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example, a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers. The apparatus can also include special purpose logic circuitry including, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). In some implementations, the data processing apparatus or special purpose logic circuitry (or a combination of the data processing apparatus or special purpose logic circuitry) can be hardware- or software-based (or a combination of both hardware- and software-based). The apparatus can optionally include code that creates an execution environment for computer programs, for example, code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, or a combination of execution environments. The present disclosure contemplates the use of data processing apparatuses with or without conventional operating systems, for example, LINUX, UNIX, WINDOWS, MAC OS, ANDROID, or IOS.


A computer program, which can also be referred to or described as a program, software, a software application, a module, a software module, a script, or code, can be written in any form of programming language. Programming languages can include, for example, compiled languages, interpreted languages, declarative languages, or procedural languages. Programs can be deployed in any form, including as stand-alone programs, modules, components, subroutines, or units for use in a computing environment. A computer program can, but need not, correspond to a file in a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other programs or data, for example, one or more scripts stored in a markup language document, in a single file dedicated to the program in question, or in multiple coordinated files storing one or more modules, sub programs, or portions of code. A computer program can be deployed for execution on one computer or on multiple computers that are located, for example, at one site or distributed across multiple sites that are interconnected by a communication network. While portions of the programs illustrated in the various figures may be shown as individual modules that implement the various features and functionality through various objects, methods, or processes, the programs can instead include a number of sub-modules, third-party services, components, and libraries. Conversely, the features and functionality of various components can be combined into single components as appropriate. Thresholds used to make computational determinations can be statically, dynamically, or both statically and dynamically determined.


The methods, processes, or logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable computers executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The methods, processes, or logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, for example, a CPU, an FPGA, or an ASIC.


Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program can be based on one or more of general and special purpose microprocessors and other kinds of CPUs. The elements of a computer are a CPU for performing or executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a CPU can receive instructions and data from (and write data to) a memory. A computer can also include, or be operatively coupled to, one or more mass storage devices for storing data. In some implementations, a computer can receive data from, and transfer data to, the mass storage devices including, for example, magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, for example, a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device such as a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive.


Computer readable media (transitory or non-transitory, as appropriate) suitable for storing computer program instructions and data can include all forms of permanent/non-permanent and volatile/non-volatile memory, media, and memory devices. Computer readable media can include, for example, semiconductor memory devices such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), phase change memory (PRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), and flash memory devices. Computer readable media can also include, for example, magnetic devices such as tape, cartridges, cassettes, and internal/removable disks. Computer readable media can also include magneto optical disks and optical memory devices and technologies including, for example, digital video disc (DVD), CD ROM, DVD+/−R, DVD-RAM, DVD-ROM, HD-DVD, and BLURAY. The memory can store various objects or data, including caches, classes, frameworks, applications, modules, backup data, jobs, web pages, web page templates, data structures, database tables, repositories, and dynamic information. Types of objects and data stored in memory can include parameters, variables, algorithms, instructions, rules, constraints, and references. Additionally, the memory can include logs, policies, security or access data, and reporting files. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.


Implementations of the subject matter described in the present disclosure can be implemented on a computer having a display device for providing interaction with a user, including displaying information to (and receiving input from) the user. Types of display devices can include, for example, a cathode ray tube (CRT), a liquid crystal display (LCD), a light-emitting diode (LED), and a plasma monitor. Display devices can include a keyboard and pointing devices including, for example, a mouse, a trackball, or a trackpad. User input can also be provided to the computer through the use of a touchscreen, such as a tablet computer surface with pressure sensitivity or a multi-touch screen using capacitive or electric sensing. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user, including to receive user feedback including, for example, sensory feedback including visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback. Input from the user can be received in the form of acoustic, speech, or tactile input. In addition, a computer can interact with a user by sending documents to, and receiving documents from, a device that is used by the user. For example, the computer can send web pages to a web browser on a user's client device in response to requests received from the web browser.


The term “graphical user interface,” or “GUI,” can be used in the singular or the plural to describe one or more graphical user interfaces and each of the displays of a particular graphical user interface. Therefore, a GUI can represent any graphical user interface, including, but not limited to, a web browser, a touch screen, or a command line interface (CLI) that processes information and efficiently presents the information results to the user. In general, a GUI can include a plurality of user interface (UI) elements, some or all associated with a web browser, such as interactive fields, pull-down lists, and buttons. These and other UI elements can be related to or represent the functions of the web browser.


Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, for example, as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, for example, an application server. Moreover, the computing system can include a front-end component, for example, a client computer having one or both of a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with the computer. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of wireline or wireless digital data communication (or a combination of data communication) in a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (LAN), a radio access network (RAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a wide area network (WAN), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WIMAX), a wireless local area network (WLAN) (for example, using 802.11 a/b/g/n or 802.20 or a combination of protocols), all or a portion of the Internet, or any other communication system or systems at one or more locations (or a combination of communication networks). The network can communicate with, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) packets, frame relay frames, asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) cells, voice, video, data, or a combination of communication types between network addresses.


The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server can generally be remote from each other and can typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server can arise by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship. Cluster file systems can be any file system type accessible from multiple servers for read and update. Locking or consistency tracking may not be necessary since the locking of exchange file system can be done at application layer. Furthermore, Unicode data files can be different from non-Unicode data files.


While this specification contains many specific implementation details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be specific to particular implementations. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate implementations can also be implemented, in combination, in a single implementation. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple implementations, separately, or in any suitable sub-combination. Moreover, although previously described features may be described as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can, in some cases, be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub-combination or variation of a sub-combination.


Particular implementations of the subject matter have been described. Other implementations, alterations, and permutations of the described implementations are within the scope of the following claims as will be apparent to those skilled in the art. While operations are depicted in the drawings or claims in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed (some operations may be considered optional), to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking or parallel processing (or a combination of multitasking and parallel processing) may be advantageous and performed as deemed appropriate.


Moreover, the separation or integration of various system modules and components in the previously described implementations should not be understood as requiring such separation or integration in all implementations, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.


Accordingly, the previously described example implementations do not define or constrain the present disclosure. Other changes, substitutions, and alterations are also possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.


Furthermore, any claimed implementation is considered to be applicable to at least a computer-implemented method; a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions to perform the computer-implemented method; and a computer system comprising a computer memory interoperably coupled with a hardware processor configured to perform the computer-implemented method or the instructions stored on the non-transitory, computer-readable medium.


Particular embodiments of the subject matter have been described. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the actions recited in the claims can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results. As one example, some processes depicted in the accompanying figures do not necessarily require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results.

Claims
  • 1. A computer-implemented method for model constrained multi-phase virtual flow metering and forecasting, the method comprising: forecasting, with one or more hardware processors, target flow rates for real-time monitoring using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates;forecasting, with the one or more hardware processors, auxiliary sensor data for real-time monitoring using trained well dynamics models;constructing, with the one or more hardware processors, at least one virtual sensing model trained using the forecast target flow rates and the forecast auxiliary sensor data, wherein the at least one virtual sensing model predicts real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates; andmonitoring, with the one or more hardware processors, the predicted real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates output by the at least one virtual sensing model of a virtual flow metering system that enables production planning based on the real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates.
  • 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising combining the trained unconstrained flow models, the trained well dynamics models, and the at least one trained virtual sensing model by providing outputs of the trained unconstrained flow forecasting models and the trained well dynamics models as input features to the at least one trained virtual sensing model.
  • 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the unconstrained flow models are trained from historical flow rates of each individual target flow, or a combination of selected or all flows.
  • 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the unconstrained flow models are based on physics models, machine learning models, or any combinations thereof.
  • 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the well dynamics models are trained using historical sensor data.
  • 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one trained virtual sensing model predicts instantaneous multi-phase flow rates based on historical flow rates and sensor data.
  • 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual flow metering system enables virtual flow metering that predicts constraint flow rates as a function of time.
  • 8. An apparatus comprising a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: predicting target flow rates for real time monitoring using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates;predicting future auxiliary sensor data for real-time monitoring using trained well dynamics models;constructing at least one virtual sensing model trained using predicted target flow rates and predicted auxiliary sensor data, wherein the at least one virtual sensing model predicts real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates; andmonitoring the predicted real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates output by the at least one virtual sensing model of a virtual flow metering system that enables production planning based on the real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates.
  • 9. The apparatus of claim 8, comprising combining the trained unconstrained flow models, the trained well dynamics models, and the at least one trained virtual sensing model by providing outputs of the trained unconstrained flow forecasting models and the trained well dynamics models as input features to the at least one trained virtual sensing model.
  • 10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the unconstrained flow is models are trained from historical flow rates of each individual target flow, or a combination of selected or all flows.
  • 11. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the unconstrained flow is models are based on physics models, machine learning models, or any combinations thereof.
  • 12. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the well dynamics models are trained using historical sensor data.
  • 13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one trained virtual sensing model predicts instantaneous multi-phase flow rates based on historical flow rates and sensor data.
  • 14. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the virtual flow metering system enables virtual flow metering that predicts constraint flow rates as a function of time.
  • 15. A system, comprising: one or more memory modules;one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory models to perform operations comprising:predicting target flow rates for real-time monitoring using unconstrained flow models trained using current and historic multi-phase flow rates;predicting auxiliary sensor data for real-time monitoring using trained well dynamics models;constructing at least one virtual sensing model trained using the predicted target flow rates and the predicted auxiliary sensor data, wherein the at least one virtual sensing model predicts real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates; andmonitoring the predicted real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates output by the at least one virtual sensing model of a virtual flow metering system that enables production planning based on the real-time constrained multi-phase flow rates.
  • 16. The system of claim 15, comprising the operations comprise combining the trained unconstrained flow models, the trained well dynamics models, and the at least one trained virtual sensing model by providing outputs of the trained unconstrained flow forecasting models and the trained well dynamics models as input features to the at least one trained virtual sensing model.
  • 17. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations comprise training the unconstrained flow models from historical flow rates of each individual target flow, or a combination of selected or all flows.
  • 18. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations comprise generating the unconstrained flow models based on physics models, machine learning models, or any combinations thereof.
  • 19. The system of claim 15, wherein the well dynamics models are trained using historical sensor data.
  • 20. The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one trained virtual sensing model predicts instantaneous multi-phase flow rates based on historical flow rates and sensor data.
US Referenced Citations (638)
Number Name Date Kind
335164 Vitalis Feb 1886 A
646887 Stowe et al. Apr 1900 A
1559155 Bullock Oct 1925 A
1912452 Hollander Jun 1933 A
1978277 Noble Oct 1934 A
2287027 Cummins Jun 1942 A
2556435 Moehrl Jun 1951 A
2625110 Haentjens et al. Jan 1953 A
2641191 Alfred Jun 1953 A
2641922 Smith Jun 1953 A
2643723 Lynes Jun 1953 A
2782720 Dochterman Feb 1957 A
2845869 Herbenar Aug 1958 A
2866417 Otto Dec 1958 A
2931384 Clark Apr 1960 A
2959225 Roberts Nov 1960 A
3007418 Brundage et al. Nov 1961 A
3034484 Stefancin May 1962 A
3038698 Troyer Jun 1962 A
3123010 Witt et al. Mar 1964 A
3129875 Cirillo Apr 1964 A
3139835 Wilkinson Jul 1964 A
3171355 Harris et al. Mar 1965 A
3175403 Nelson Mar 1965 A
3175618 Lang et al. Mar 1965 A
3251226 Cushing May 1966 A
3272130 Mosbacher Sep 1966 A
3413925 Campolong Dec 1968 A
3448305 Raynal et al. Jun 1969 A
3516765 Boyadjieff Jun 1970 A
3558936 Horan Jan 1971 A
3638732 Huntsinger et al. Feb 1972 A
3663845 Apstein May 1972 A
3680989 Brundage Aug 1972 A
3724503 Cooke Apr 1973 A
3771910 Laing Nov 1973 A
3795145 Miller Mar 1974 A
3839914 Modisette et al. Oct 1974 A
3874812 Hanagarth Apr 1975 A
3906792 Miller Sep 1975 A
3916999 Ellis et al. Nov 1975 A
3918520 Hutchison Nov 1975 A
3961758 Morgan Jun 1976 A
3970877 Russell et al. Jul 1976 A
3975117 Carter Aug 1976 A
4025244 Sato May 1977 A
4051372 Aine Sep 1977 A
4096211 Rameau Jun 1978 A
4139330 Neal Feb 1979 A
4154302 Cugini May 1979 A
4181175 McGee et al. Jan 1980 A
4224687 Claycomb Sep 1980 A
4226275 Frosch Oct 1980 A
4266607 Halstead May 1981 A
4289199 McGee Sep 1981 A
4336415 Walling Jun 1982 A
4374530 Walling Feb 1983 A
4387318 Kolm et al. Jun 1983 A
4387685 Abbey Jun 1983 A
4417474 Elderton Nov 1983 A
4425965 Bayh, III et al. Jan 1984 A
4440221 Taylor et al. Apr 1984 A
4476923 Walling Oct 1984 A
4491176 Reed Jan 1985 A
4497185 Shaw Feb 1985 A
4536674 Schmidt Aug 1985 A
4576043 Nguyen Mar 1986 A
4580634 Cruise Apr 1986 A
4582131 Plummer et al. Apr 1986 A
4586854 Newman et al. May 1986 A
4619323 Gidley Oct 1986 A
4627489 Reed Dec 1986 A
4632187 Bayh, III et al. Dec 1986 A
4658583 Shropshire Apr 1987 A
4662437 Renfro May 1987 A
4665981 Hayatdavoudi May 1987 A
4685521 Raulins Aug 1987 A
4685523 Paschal, Jr. et al. Aug 1987 A
4741668 Bearden et al. May 1988 A
4757709 Czernichow Jul 1988 A
RE32866 Cruise Feb 1989 E
4838758 Sheth Jun 1989 A
4850812 Voight Jul 1989 A
4856344 Hunt Aug 1989 A
4867633 Gravelle Sep 1989 A
4969364 Masuda Nov 1990 A
4986739 Child Jan 1991 A
5033937 Wilson Jul 1991 A
5094294 Bayh, III et al. Mar 1992 A
5113379 Scherbatskoy May 1992 A
5150619 Turner Sep 1992 A
5158440 Cooper et al. Oct 1992 A
5169286 Yamada Dec 1992 A
5180014 Cox Jan 1993 A
5195882 Freeman Mar 1993 A
5201848 Powers Apr 1993 A
5209650 Lemieux May 1993 A
5215151 Smith Jun 1993 A
5224182 Murphy et al. Jun 1993 A
5261796 Niemiec et al. Nov 1993 A
5269377 Martin Dec 1993 A
5285008 Sas-Jaworsky et al. Feb 1994 A
5287328 Anderson et al. Feb 1994 A
5301760 Graham Apr 1994 A
5317223 Kiesewetter et al. May 1994 A
5323661 Cheng Jun 1994 A
5334801 Mohn Aug 1994 A
5335542 Ramakrishnan et al. Aug 1994 A
5337603 McFarland et al. Aug 1994 A
5350018 Sorem et al. Sep 1994 A
5358378 Holscher Oct 1994 A
5375622 Houston Dec 1994 A
5482117 Kolpak Jan 1996 A
5494413 Campen et al. Feb 1996 A
5503228 Anderson Apr 1996 A
5566762 Braddick et al. Oct 1996 A
5591922 Segeral et al. Jan 1997 A
5605193 Bearden et al. Feb 1997 A
5613311 Burtch Mar 1997 A
5613555 Sorem et al. Mar 1997 A
5620048 Beauquin Apr 1997 A
5641915 Ortiz Jun 1997 A
5649811 Krol, Jr. et al. Jul 1997 A
5653585 Fresco et al. Aug 1997 A
5693891 Brown Dec 1997 A
5708500 Anderson Jan 1998 A
5736650 Hiron et al. Apr 1998 A
5738173 Burge Apr 1998 A
5755288 Bearden et al. May 1998 A
5834659 Ortiz Nov 1998 A
5845709 Mack et al. Dec 1998 A
5848642 Sola Dec 1998 A
5880378 Behring Mar 1999 A
5886267 Ortiz et al. Mar 1999 A
5892860 Maron et al. Apr 1999 A
5905208 Ortiz et al. May 1999 A
5908049 Williams et al. Jun 1999 A
5921285 Quigley et al. Jul 1999 A
5954305 Calabro Sep 1999 A
5965964 Skinner et al. Oct 1999 A
5975205 Carisella Nov 1999 A
6044906 Saltel Apr 2000 A
6068015 Pringle May 2000 A
6082455 Pringle et al. Jul 2000 A
6113675 Branstetter Sep 2000 A
6129507 Ganelin Oct 2000 A
6148866 Quigley et al. Nov 2000 A
6155102 Toma Dec 2000 A
6164308 Butler Dec 2000 A
6167965 Bearden et al. Jan 2001 B1
6176323 Weirich Jan 2001 B1
6179269 Kobylinski et al. Jan 2001 B1
6192983 Neuroth et al. Feb 2001 B1
6193079 Weimer Feb 2001 B1
6209652 Portman et al. Apr 2001 B1
6257332 Vidrine et al. Jul 2001 B1
6264440 Klein et al. Jul 2001 B1
6285446 Farhadiroushan et al. Sep 2001 B1
6286558 Quigley et al. Sep 2001 B1
6289990 Dillon et al. Sep 2001 B1
6298917 Kobylinski et al. Oct 2001 B1
6325143 Scarsdale Dec 2001 B1
6357485 Quigley et al. Mar 2002 B2
6361272 Bassett Mar 2002 B1
6413065 Dass Jul 2002 B1
6414239 Gasque, Jr. Jul 2002 B1
6427778 Beall et al. Aug 2002 B1
6454010 Thomas et al. Sep 2002 B1
6463810 Liu Oct 2002 B1
6504258 Schultz et al. Jan 2003 B2
6530211 Holtzapple et al. Mar 2003 B2
6544013 Kato et al. Apr 2003 B2
6546812 Lewis Apr 2003 B2
6547519 deBlanc et al. Apr 2003 B2
6550327 Van Berk Apr 2003 B1
6557642 Head May 2003 B2
6578638 Guillory et al. Jun 2003 B2
6588266 Tubel et al. Jul 2003 B2
6597446 Klooster et al. Jul 2003 B2
6601460 Materna Aug 2003 B1
6601651 Grant Aug 2003 B2
6604550 Quigley et al. Aug 2003 B2
6629564 Ramakrishnan et al. Oct 2003 B1
6640898 Lord et al. Nov 2003 B2
6655221 Aspelund et al. Dec 2003 B1
6679692 Feuling et al. Jan 2004 B1
6681894 Fanguy Jan 2004 B1
6726449 James et al. Apr 2004 B2
6728165 Roscigno et al. Apr 2004 B1
6733249 Maier et al. May 2004 B2
6741000 Newcomb May 2004 B2
6755609 Preinfalk Jun 2004 B2
6768214 Schultz et al. Jul 2004 B2
6776054 Stephenson Aug 2004 B1
6779601 Wilson Aug 2004 B2
6807857 Storm, Jr. Oct 2004 B2
6808371 Niwatsukino et al. Oct 2004 B2
6811382 Buchanan et al. Nov 2004 B2
6848539 Lee et al. Feb 2005 B2
6856132 Appel et al. Feb 2005 B2
6857452 Quigley et al. Feb 2005 B2
6857920 Marathe et al. Feb 2005 B2
6863137 Terry et al. Mar 2005 B2
6913079 Tubel Jul 2005 B2
6915707 Nyfors et al. Jul 2005 B2
6920085 Finke et al. Jul 2005 B2
6935189 Richards Aug 2005 B2
6982928 Al-Ali Jan 2006 B2
6993979 Segeral Feb 2006 B2
7017681 Ivannikov et al. Mar 2006 B2
7021905 Torrey et al. Apr 2006 B2
7032662 Malone et al. Apr 2006 B2
7086294 DeLong Aug 2006 B2
7086481 Hosie Aug 2006 B2
7093665 Dass Aug 2006 B2
7107860 Jones Sep 2006 B2
7199480 Fripp et al. Apr 2007 B2
7224077 Allen May 2007 B2
7226279 Andoskin et al. Jun 2007 B2
7242103 Tips Jul 2007 B2
7249805 Cap Jul 2007 B2
7259688 Hirsch et al. Aug 2007 B2
7262532 Seidler et al. Aug 2007 B2
7275592 Davis Oct 2007 B2
7275711 Flanigan Oct 2007 B1
7293471 Bo et al. Nov 2007 B2
7317989 DiFoggio Jan 2008 B2
7338262 Gozdawa Mar 2008 B2
7345372 Roberts et al. Mar 2008 B2
7347261 Markel Mar 2008 B2
7377312 Davis May 2008 B2
7387021 DiFoggio Jun 2008 B2
7410003 Ravensbergen et al. Aug 2008 B2
7520158 DiFoggio Apr 2009 B2
7616524 Gersztenkorn Nov 2009 B1
7647948 Quigley et al. Jan 2010 B2
7668411 Davies et al. Feb 2010 B2
7670122 Phillips et al. Mar 2010 B2
7670451 Head Mar 2010 B2
7699099 Bolding et al. Apr 2010 B2
7719676 DiFoggio May 2010 B2
7730937 Head Jun 2010 B2
7762715 Gordon et al. Jul 2010 B2
7770469 Nyfors et al. Aug 2010 B2
7770650 Young et al. Aug 2010 B2
7775763 Johnson et al. Aug 2010 B1
7819640 Kalavsky et al. Oct 2010 B2
7841395 Gay et al. Nov 2010 B2
7841826 Phillips Nov 2010 B1
7847421 Gardner et al. Dec 2010 B2
7849928 Collie Dec 2010 B2
7857055 Li Dec 2010 B2
7905295 Mack Mar 2011 B2
7906861 Guerrero et al. Mar 2011 B2
7908230 Bailey et al. Mar 2011 B2
7946341 Hartog et al. May 2011 B2
8013660 Fitzi Sep 2011 B2
8016545 Oklejas et al. Sep 2011 B2
8047232 Bernitsas Nov 2011 B2
8066033 Quigley et al. Nov 2011 B2
8067865 Savant Nov 2011 B2
8098376 So et al. Jan 2012 B2
8197602 Baron Jun 2012 B2
8204727 Dean et al. Jun 2012 B2
8235126 Bradley Aug 2012 B2
8258644 Kaplan Sep 2012 B2
8261841 Bailey et al. Sep 2012 B2
8302736 Olivier Nov 2012 B1
8334980 So et al. Dec 2012 B2
8337142 Eslinger et al. Dec 2012 B2
8359904 Nicoletti et al. Jan 2013 B2
8408064 Hartog et al. Apr 2013 B2
8419398 Kothnur et al. Apr 2013 B2
8421251 Pabon et al. Apr 2013 B2
8426988 Hay Apr 2013 B2
8493556 Li et al. Jul 2013 B2
8506257 Bottome Aug 2013 B2
8510242 Al-Fattah et al. Aug 2013 B2
8564179 Ochoa et al. Oct 2013 B2
8568081 Song et al. Oct 2013 B2
8570050 Nyfors et al. Oct 2013 B2
8579617 Ono et al. Nov 2013 B2
8604634 Pabon et al. Dec 2013 B2
8638002 Lu Jan 2014 B2
8648480 Liu et al. Feb 2014 B1
8771499 McCutchen et al. Jul 2014 B2
8786113 Tinnen et al. Jul 2014 B2
8821138 Holtzapple et al. Sep 2014 B2
8826973 Moxley et al. Sep 2014 B2
8851192 Deible Oct 2014 B2
8905728 Blankemeier et al. Dec 2014 B2
8916983 Marya et al. Dec 2014 B2
8925649 Wiebe et al. Jan 2015 B1
8936430 Bassett Jan 2015 B2
8948550 Li et al. Feb 2015 B2
8950476 Head Feb 2015 B2
8960309 Davis Feb 2015 B2
8973433 Mulford Mar 2015 B2
9080336 Yantis Jul 2015 B1
9091144 Swanson et al. Jul 2015 B2
9091161 Brannon Jul 2015 B2
9106159 Wiebe et al. Aug 2015 B1
9109429 Xu et al. Aug 2015 B2
9130161 Nair et al. Sep 2015 B2
9133709 Huh et al. Sep 2015 B2
9140815 Lopez et al. Sep 2015 B2
9157297 Williamson, Jr. Oct 2015 B2
9170149 Hartog et al. Oct 2015 B2
9200932 Sittler Dec 2015 B2
9203277 Kori et al. Dec 2015 B2
9234529 Meuter Jan 2016 B2
9239043 Zeas Jan 2016 B1
9321222 Childers et al. Apr 2016 B2
9322389 Tosi Apr 2016 B2
9353614 Roth et al. May 2016 B2
9383476 Trehan Jul 2016 B2
9499460 Kawamura et al. Nov 2016 B2
9500073 Alan et al. Nov 2016 B2
9540908 Olivier Jan 2017 B1
9574438 Flores Feb 2017 B2
9581489 Skinner Feb 2017 B2
9587456 Roth Mar 2017 B2
9593561 Xiao et al. Mar 2017 B2
9599460 Wang et al. Mar 2017 B2
9599505 Lagakos et al. Mar 2017 B2
9617847 Jaaskelainen et al. Apr 2017 B2
9631482 Roth et al. Apr 2017 B2
9677560 Davis et al. Jun 2017 B1
9696283 Yu Jul 2017 B1
9757796 Sherman et al. Sep 2017 B2
9759025 Vavik Sep 2017 B2
9759041 Osborne Sep 2017 B2
9784077 Gorrara Oct 2017 B2
9880096 Bond et al. Jan 2018 B2
9903010 Doud et al. Feb 2018 B2
9903172 Hansen Feb 2018 B2
9915134 Xiao et al. Mar 2018 B2
9932806 Stewart Apr 2018 B2
9951598 Roth et al. Apr 2018 B2
9964533 Ahmad May 2018 B2
9976381 Martin et al. May 2018 B2
9982519 Melo May 2018 B2
10012758 Speck et al. Jul 2018 B2
10067255 Colombo et al. Sep 2018 B2
10100596 Roth et al. Oct 2018 B2
10115942 Qiao et al. Oct 2018 B2
10138885 Ejim et al. Nov 2018 B2
10151194 Roth et al. Dec 2018 B2
10209383 Barfoot et al. Feb 2019 B2
10253610 Roth et al. Apr 2019 B2
10273399 Cox et al. Apr 2019 B2
10287853 Ejim et al. May 2019 B2
10308865 Cox et al. Jun 2019 B2
10323644 Shakirov et al. Jun 2019 B1
10337302 Roth et al. Jul 2019 B2
10337312 Xiao et al. Jul 2019 B2
10345468 Poole Jul 2019 B2
10352125 Frazier Jul 2019 B2
10367434 Ahmad Jul 2019 B2
10378322 Ejim et al. Aug 2019 B2
10386519 Colombo et al. Aug 2019 B2
10465477 Abdelaziz et al. Nov 2019 B2
10465484 Turner et al. Nov 2019 B2
10487259 Cox et al. Nov 2019 B2
10501682 Cox et al. Dec 2019 B2
10533558 Melo et al. Jan 2020 B2
10578111 Xiao et al. Mar 2020 B2
10634553 Hveding et al. Apr 2020 B1
10724312 Zsolt Jul 2020 B2
10844672 Dziekonski Nov 2020 B2
10845494 Zhao et al. Nov 2020 B2
10852450 Colombo et al. Dec 2020 B2
10920585 Colombo et al. Feb 2021 B2
10934814 Arsalan et al. Mar 2021 B2
10962408 Hveding et al. Mar 2021 B2
11028673 Arsalan et al. Jun 2021 B2
11092709 Zhao et al. Aug 2021 B2
11209307 Hveding et al. Dec 2021 B2
11242731 Arsalan et al. Feb 2022 B2
11243322 Li Feb 2022 B2
20010036334 Choa Nov 2001 A1
20020043404 Trueman et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020074742 Quoiani Jun 2002 A1
20020079100 Simpson Jun 2002 A1
20020109080 Tubel et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020121376 Rivas Sep 2002 A1
20020153141 Hartman Oct 2002 A1
20030024738 Schuh Feb 2003 A1
20030079880 Deaton et al. May 2003 A1
20030141071 Hosie Jul 2003 A1
20030161739 Chu et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030185676 James Oct 2003 A1
20030226395 Storm et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040060705 Kelley Apr 2004 A1
20050047779 Jaynes et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050098349 Krueger et al. May 2005 A1
20050166961 Means Aug 2005 A1
20050177349 Lu Aug 2005 A1
20050217859 Hartman Oct 2005 A1
20050274527 Misselbrook Dec 2005 A1
20060012785 Funk et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060076956 Sjolie et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060086498 Wetzel et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060096760 Ohmer May 2006 A1
20060266108 DiFoggio Nov 2006 A1
20060266109 Difoggio Nov 2006 A1
20070012437 Clingman et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070064531 DuBose Mar 2007 A1
20070181304 Rankin et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070193749 Folk Aug 2007 A1
20070220987 Clifton et al. Sep 2007 A1
20080048455 Carney Feb 2008 A1
20080093084 Knight Apr 2008 A1
20080100828 Cyr et al. May 2008 A1
20080111064 Andrews et al. May 2008 A1
20080187434 Neiszer Aug 2008 A1
20080236842 Bhavsar et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080262737 Thigpen et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080264182 Jones Oct 2008 A1
20080277941 Bowles Nov 2008 A1
20080290876 Ameen Nov 2008 A1
20080292454 Brunner Nov 2008 A1
20080296067 Haughom Dec 2008 A1
20090001304 Hansen et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090016899 Davis Jan 2009 A1
20090027677 Willing et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090090513 Bissonnette Apr 2009 A1
20090107725 Christy et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090110579 Amburgey Apr 2009 A1
20090151928 Lawson Jun 2009 A1
20090151953 Brown Jun 2009 A1
20090166045 Wetzel et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090255669 Ayan et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090304322 Davies et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090289627 Johansen et al. Nov 2009 A1
20090293634 Ong Dec 2009 A1
20100011836 Kalkman Jan 2010 A1
20100040492 Eslinger et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100044103 Moxley et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100122818 Rooks May 2010 A1
20100164231 Tsou Jul 2010 A1
20100206420 Jakobsen Aug 2010 A1
20100206577 Martinez Aug 2010 A1
20100236794 Duan Sep 2010 A1
20100244404 Bradley Sep 2010 A1
20100258306 Camilleri Oct 2010 A1
20100288493 Fielder et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100300413 Ulrey et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100308592 Frayne Dec 2010 A1
20100312529 Souche Dec 2010 A1
20110017459 Dinkins Jan 2011 A1
20110024107 Sunyovszky et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110024231 Wurth et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110036568 Barbosa Feb 2011 A1
20110036662 Smith Feb 2011 A1
20110049901 Tinnen Mar 2011 A1
20110069581 Krohn Mar 2011 A1
20110072886 Caneau Mar 2011 A1
20110088462 Samson et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110155390 Lannom et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110162832 Reid Jul 2011 A1
20110185805 Roux et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110203848 Krueger et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110213556 Yu et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110259120 Thonstad Oct 2011 A1
20110273032 Lu Nov 2011 A1
20110278094 Gute Nov 2011 A1
20110296911 Moore Dec 2011 A1
20110300008 Fielder et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120012327 Plunkett et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120018143 Lembcke Jan 2012 A1
20120048618 Zamanian et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120060615 Farhadiroushan et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120151994 Hung Jun 2012 A1
20120210796 Schade Aug 2012 A1
20120211245 Fuhst et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120282119 Floyd Nov 2012 A1
20120292915 Moon Nov 2012 A1
20130019673 Sroka Jan 2013 A1
20130300833 Perkins Jan 2013 A1
20130033961 Burnstad Feb 2013 A1
20130048302 Gokdag et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130051977 Song Feb 2013 A1
20130066139 Wiessler Mar 2013 A1
20130068454 Armistead Mar 2013 A1
20130068481 Zhou Mar 2013 A1
20130073208 Dorovsky Mar 2013 A1
20130081460 Xiao et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130091942 Samson et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130119669 Murphree May 2013 A1
20130140031 Cohen et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130167628 Hull et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130175030 Ige Jul 2013 A1
20130189123 Stokley Jul 2013 A1
20130194893 Nagarajappa Aug 2013 A1
20130200628 Kane Aug 2013 A1
20130213663 Lau et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130227940 Greenblatt Sep 2013 A1
20130248429 Dahule Sep 2013 A1
20130255370 Roux et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130259721 Noui-Mehidi Oct 2013 A1
20130336091 Song et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140012507 Trehan Jan 2014 A1
20140014331 Crocker Jan 2014 A1
20140027546 Kean et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140037422 Gilarranz Feb 2014 A1
20140041862 Ersoz Feb 2014 A1
20140076547 Unalmis et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140116720 He et al. May 2014 A1
20140138528 Pope et al. May 2014 A1
20140144706 Bailey et al. May 2014 A1
20140167418 Hiejima Jun 2014 A1
20140175800 Thorp Jun 2014 A1
20140195215 Chen et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140208855 Skinner Jul 2014 A1
20140209291 Watson et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140240951 Brady et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140265337 Harding et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140284937 Dudley et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140288838 Trickett Sep 2014 A1
20140311737 Bedouet et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140341714 Casa Nov 2014 A1
20140343857 Pfutzner Nov 2014 A1
20140365135 Poole Dec 2014 A1
20140377080 Xiao et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150034580 Nakao et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150060083 Romer et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150068769 Xiao et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150071795 Vazquez et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150114127 Barfoot et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150177300 Paech Jun 2015 A1
20150192141 Nowitzki et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150233228 Roth Aug 2015 A1
20150308245 Stewart et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150308444 Trottman Oct 2015 A1
20150316674 Deschizeaux et al. Nov 2015 A1
20150318920 Johnston Nov 2015 A1
20150330194 June et al. Nov 2015 A1
20150354308 June et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150354590 Kao Dec 2015 A1
20150369029 Potapenko Dec 2015 A1
20150376907 Nguyen Dec 2015 A1
20160010451 Melo Jan 2016 A1
20160016834 Dahule Jan 2016 A1
20160018985 Bennet et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160040518 Potapenko Feb 2016 A1
20160054285 Freese Feb 2016 A1
20160139085 Pelletier et al. May 2016 A1
20160168957 Tubel Jun 2016 A1
20160169231 Michelassi et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160177659 Voll et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160187513 Poole et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160202142 Wang et al. Jul 2016 A1
20160273947 Mu et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160305447 Dreiss et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160320509 Almuhaidib Nov 2016 A1
20160332856 Steedley Nov 2016 A1
20160341834 Bartetzko Nov 2016 A1
20170030819 Mccarty et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170033713 Petroni Feb 2017 A1
20170038246 Coates et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170038294 Kshirsagar Feb 2017 A1
20170058664 Xiao et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170074082 Palmer Mar 2017 A1
20170075029 Cuny et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170122046 Vavik May 2017 A1
20170137699 Song et al. May 2017 A1
20170138189 Ahmad et al. May 2017 A1
20170159668 Nowitzki et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170167498 Chang Jun 2017 A1
20170175752 Hofer et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170183942 Veland Jun 2017 A1
20170193361 Chilimbi et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170194831 Marvel Jul 2017 A1
20170211372 Samuel Jul 2017 A1
20170235006 Ellmauthaler et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170241251 Rodrigues et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170260846 Jin et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170292533 Zia Oct 2017 A1
20170321695 Head Nov 2017 A1
20170328151 Dillard Nov 2017 A1
20170370197 Han et al. Dec 2017 A1
20180011033 Karimi et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180045543 Farhadiroushan et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180052041 Yaman et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180058157 Melo et al. Mar 2018 A1
20180066671 Murugan Mar 2018 A1
20180128661 Munro May 2018 A1
20180134036 Galtarossa et al. May 2018 A1
20180136353 Zhao et al. May 2018 A1
20180155991 Arsalan et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180156030 Arsalan et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180156600 Cable et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180171763 Malbrel et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180171767 Huynh et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180172020 Ejim Jun 2018 A1
20180202843 Artuso et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180209253 Westberg Jul 2018 A1
20180226174 Rose Aug 2018 A1
20180238152 Melo Aug 2018 A1
20180274311 Zsolt Sep 2018 A1
20180284304 Barfoot et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180306199 Reed Oct 2018 A1
20180320059 Cox et al. Nov 2018 A1
20180321405 Colombo et al. Nov 2018 A1
20180340389 Wang Nov 2018 A1
20180351480 Ahmad Dec 2018 A1
20180355707 Herrera et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180363660 Klahn Dec 2018 A1
20190025095 Steel Jan 2019 A1
20190032667 Ifrim et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190040863 Davis et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190049054 Gunnarsson Feb 2019 A1
20190055792 Sui et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190072379 Jalilian et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190078427 Gillan Mar 2019 A1
20190128113 Ross et al. May 2019 A1
20190253003 Ahmad Aug 2019 A1
20190253004 Ahmad Aug 2019 A1
20190253005 Ahmad Aug 2019 A1
20190253006 Ahmad Aug 2019 A1
20190271217 Radov et al. Sep 2019 A1
20190368291 Xiao et al. Dec 2019 A1
20190376371 Arsalan Dec 2019 A1
20200018149 Luo et al. Jan 2020 A1
20200056462 Xiao et al. Feb 2020 A1
20200056615 Xiao et al. Feb 2020 A1
20200134773 Pinter et al. Apr 2020 A1
20200182024 Arsalan et al. Jun 2020 A1
20200319108 Butte et al. Oct 2020 A1
20200386080 Xu Dec 2020 A1
20210095557 Xu et al. Apr 2021 A1
20210190983 Colombo et al. Jun 2021 A1
20210264262 Colombo et al. Aug 2021 A1
20210340849 Arsalan et al. Nov 2021 A1
20210404849 Xie Dec 2021 A1
20220074304 Mahalingam et al. Mar 2022 A1
20220074767 Mahalingam et al. Mar 2022 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (136)
Number Date Country
1226325 Sep 1987 CA
2629578 Oct 2009 CA
2168104 Jun 1994 CN
1507531 Jun 2004 CN
101328769 Dec 2008 CN
101592475 Dec 2009 CN
201496028 Jun 2010 CN
101842547 Sep 2010 CN
102471701 May 2012 CN
101488805 Aug 2012 CN
102707314 Oct 2012 CN
102749648 Oct 2012 CN
102854533 Jan 2013 CN
102998703 Mar 2013 CN
202851445 Apr 2013 CN
103185025 Jul 2013 CN
203420906 Feb 2014 CN
103645507 Mar 2014 CN
102425374 Jul 2014 CN
103913186 Jul 2014 CN
104141633 Nov 2014 CN
104483704 Apr 2015 CN
104533797 Apr 2015 CN
105043586 Nov 2015 CN
105136337 Dec 2015 CN
103835988 Jan 2016 CN
105239963 Jan 2016 CN
103717901 Jun 2016 CN
106895959 Jun 2017 CN
107144339 Sep 2017 CN
206496768 Sep 2017 CN
105371943 Jun 2018 CN
107664541 Jun 2018 CN
108534910 Sep 2018 CN
104236644 Dec 2018 CN
2260678 Jun 1974 DE
3022241 Dec 1981 DE
3444859 Jun 1985 DE
3520884 Jan 1986 DE
19654092 Jul 1998 DE
10307887 Oct 2004 DE
102007005426 May 2008 DE
102008001607 Nov 2009 DE
102008054766 Jun 2010 DE
202012103729 Oct 2012 DE
102012215023 Jan 2014 DE
102012022453 May 2014 DE
102013200450 Jul 2014 DE
102012205757 Aug 2014 DE
0380148 Aug 1990 EP
0510774 Oct 1992 EP
0579981 Jan 1994 EP
0637675 Feb 1995 EP
1041244 Oct 2000 EP
1101024 May 2001 EP
1143104 Oct 2001 EP
1270900 Jan 2003 EP
1369588 Dec 2003 EP
2072971 Jun 2009 EP
2801696 Dec 2014 EP
2893301 May 2018 EP
3527830 Aug 2019 EP
670206 Apr 1952 GB
2173034 Oct 1986 GB
2218721 Nov 1989 GB
2226776 Jul 1990 GB
2283035 Apr 1995 GB
2313445 Nov 1997 GB
2348674 Oct 2000 GB
2477909 Aug 2011 GB
2504104 Jan 2014 GB
4019375 Jan 1992 JP
2005076486 Mar 2005 JP
2007135124 May 2007 JP
2007527157 Sep 2007 JP
2010156172 Jul 2010 JP
2013110910 Jun 2013 JP
2270907 Feb 2006 RU
98500 Oct 2010 RU
122531 Nov 2012 RU
178531 Apr 2018 RU
WO 1993006331 Apr 1993 WO
WO 1995004869 Feb 1995 WO
WO 1998046857 Oct 1998 WO
WO 1999027256 Jun 1999 WO
WO 2002072998 Sep 2002 WO
WO 2005066502 Jul 2005 WO
WO 2005078601 Aug 2005 WO
WO 2009024544 Feb 2009 WO
WO 2009024545 Feb 2009 WO
WO 2009030870 Mar 2009 WO
WO 2009046709 Apr 2009 WO
WO 2009113894 Sep 2009 WO
WO 2009129607 Oct 2009 WO
WO 2011066050 Jun 2011 WO
WO 2011101296 Aug 2011 WO
WO 2011133620 Oct 2011 WO
WO 2011135541 Nov 2011 WO
WO 2012058290 May 2012 WO
WO 2012166638 Dec 2012 WO
WO 2013005091 Jan 2013 WO
WO 2013089746 Jun 2013 WO
WO 2013171053 Nov 2013 WO
WO 2014114683 Jul 2014 WO
WO 2014116458 Jul 2014 WO
WO 2014127035 Aug 2014 WO
WO 2014147645 Sep 2014 WO
WO 2015034482 Mar 2015 WO
WO 2015041655 Mar 2015 WO
WO 2015073018 May 2015 WO
WO 2015078842 Jun 2015 WO
WO 2015084926 Jun 2015 WO
WO 2015123236 Aug 2015 WO
WO 2015192239 Dec 2015 WO
WO 2016003662 Jan 2016 WO
WO 2016003985 Jan 2016 WO
WO 2016012245 Jan 2016 WO
WO 2016050301 Apr 2016 WO
WO 2016081389 May 2016 WO
WO 2016089526 Jun 2016 WO
WO 2016111849 Jul 2016 WO
WO 2016130620 Aug 2016 WO
WO 2016160016 Oct 2016 WO
WO 2016195643 Dec 2016 WO
WO 2016195846 Dec 2016 WO
WO 2017021553 Feb 2017 WO
WO 2017146593 Aug 2017 WO
WO 2017197203 Nov 2017 WO
WO 2018022198 Feb 2018 WO
WO 2018096345 May 2018 WO
WO 2018125071 Jul 2018 WO
WO 2018145215 Aug 2018 WO
WO 2018160347 Sep 2018 WO
WO 2019243789 Dec 2019 WO
WO 2020089670 May 2020 WO
WO-2020244684 Dec 2020 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (156)
Entry
English machine translation of WO 2020244684 A1. (Year: 2020).
U.S. Appl. No. 17/237,746, filed Apr. 22, 2021, Colombo et al.
Abelsson et al., “Development and Testing of a Hybrid Boosting Pump,” OTC 21516, Offshore Technology Conference, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, May 2-5, 2011, 9 pages.
Ahmadi et al., “Comparison of machine learning methods for estimating permeability and porosity of oil reservoirs via petro-physical logs,” Petroleum, 2019, 5:271-284, 14 pages.
Akinade et al., “Improving the Rheological Properties of Drilling Mud Using Local Based Materials,” American Journal of Engineering Research, Jan. 2018, 7 pages.
Al-Ali et al., “Vibrator Attribute Leading Velocity Estimation,” The Leading Edge, May 2003, 5 pages.
Alexandrov et al., “Improving imaging and repeatability on land using virtual source redatuming with shallow buried receivers,” XPo55463335, Geophysics 8:2, Mar. 1, 2015, 12 pages.
Alexandrov et al., “Improving land seismic repeatability with virtual source redatuming: synthesis case study,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), presented at the SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2012, 1-5, Sep. 2012, 5 pages.
Al-Hameedi et al., “Mud loss estimation using machine learning approach,” Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, Jun. 2019, 9:2 (1339-1354), 16 pages.
Alhanati et al., “ESP Failures: Can we talk the same language?” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE ESP Workshop held in Houston, Apr. 25-27, 2001, 11 page.
Alhasan et al., “Extending mature field production life using a multiphase twin screw pump,” BHR Group Multiphase 15, 2011, 11 pages.
Alsaihati et al., “Real-Time Prediction of Equivalent Circulation Density for Horizontal Wells Using Intelligent Machines,” American Chemical Society (ACS), ACS Omega., Jan. 2021, 6(1): 934-942, 9 pages.
Andrianov, “A machine learning approach for virtual flow metering and forecasting, ” IFAC PapersOnLine, 2018, 51:8 (191-196), 6 pages.
Anoop et al., “Viscosity measurement dataset for a water-based drilling mud-carbon nanotube suspension at high-pressure and high-temperature,” Data in Brief., Jun. 2019, 24: 103816, 5 pages.
Antony et al., “Photonics and fracture toughness of heterogeneous composite materials,” 2017, Scientific Reports, 7:4539, 8 pages.
Askari and Siahkoohi, “Ground roll attenuation using the S and x-f-k transforms,” Geophysical Prospecting 56, Jan. 2008, 10 pages.
Baker Hughes, “Multiphase Pump: Increases Efficiency and Production in Wells with High Gast Content,” Brochure overview, retrieved from URL <https://assets.www.bakerhughes.com/system/69/00d970d9dd11e3a411ddf3c1325ea6/28592.MVP_Overview.pdf>, 2014, 2 pages.
Bakulin and Calvert, “The virtual source method: Theory and case study,” Geophysics 71:4, Jul.-Aug. 2006, 12 pages.
Bakulin and Calvert, “Virtual Source: new method for imaging and 4D below complex overburden,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), presented at the SEG International Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting, Oct. 10-15, 2004, 4 pages.
Bao et al., “Recent development in the distributed fiber optic acoustic and ultrasonic detection,” Journal of Lightwave Technology 35:16, Aug. 15, 2017, 12 pages.
Batarseh et al., “Downhole high-power laser tools development and evolutions,” presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum & Exhibition Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 12-15, 2018, 15 pages.
Batarseh et al., “High power laser application in openhole multiple fracturing with an overview of laser research; Past, present and future,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Khobar, Saudi Arabia, Apr. 8-11, 2012, 10 pages.
Batarseh et al., “Laser Gun: The Next Perforation Technology,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, Mar. 18-21, 2019, 15 pages.
Batarseh et al., “Microwave With Assisted Ceramic Materials to Maximize Heat Penetration and Improve Recovery Efficiency of Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Kingdom of Bahrain, Mar. 6-9, 2017, 24 pages.
Batarseh et al., “Well Perforation Using High-Power Lasers,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct. 5-8, 2003, 10 pages.
Beck et al., “The Effect of Rheology on Rate of Penetration,” SPE/IADC 29368, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Drilling Conference., Jan. 1995, 9 pages.
Bég et al., “Experimental study of improved rheology and lubricity of drilling fluids enhanced with nano-particles,” Applied Nanoscience., Jun. 2018, 8(5): 1069-1090, 22 pages.
Bikmukhametov et al., “Combining machine learning and process engineering physics towards enhanced accuracy and explainability of data-driven models,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, Jul. 2020, 138:106834, 27 pages.
Bikmukhametov et al., “First principles and machine learning virtual flow metering: A literature review,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Jan. 2020, 184:106487, 26 pages.
Blunt, “Effects of heterogeneity and wetting on relative permeability using pore level modeling,” SPE 36762, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Journal 2:01 (70-87), Mar. 1997, 19 pages.
Boinott et al., “High resolution geomechanical profiling in heterogeneous source rock from the Vaca Muerta Formation, Neuquén Basin, Argentina,” presented at the 52nd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Seattle, Washington, USA, American Rock Mechanics Association, Jun. 17-20, 2018, 8 pages.
Born et al., “Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light,” 6th ed. Pergamon Press, 808 pages.
Bryant and Blunt, “Prediction of relative permeability in simple porous media,” Physical Review A 46:4, Aug. 1992, 8 pages.
Bybee et al., “Through-Tubing Completions Maximize Production,” SPE-0206-0057, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Drilling and Cementing Technology, JPT, Feb. 2006, 2 pages.
Cadzou, “Signal enhancement—A Composite Property Mapping Algorithm,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 36:1, Jan. 1988, 14 pages.
Carvill, “Integration of an extensive uphole program with refraction analysis to build a 3-D near-surface model on a workstation: A case history,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1995, 4 pages.
Champion et al., “The application of high-power sound waves for wellbore cleaning,” SPE 82197, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, May 13-14, 2003, 10 pages.
Chappell and Lancaster, “Comparison of methodological uncertainties within permeability measurements,” Wiley InterScience, Hydrological Processes, Jan. 2007, 21(18):2504-2514, 11 pages.
Chen et al., “Distributed acoustic sensor based on two-mode fiber,” Optics Express, Sep. 2018, 26(19), 9 pages.
Chen, “Application of Machine Learning Methods to Predict Well Productivity in Montney and Duvernay,” University of Calgary, Apr. 2019, pages.
Chen, “Robust matrix rank reduction methods for seismic data processing, ” Thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Geophysics, University of Alberta, Fall of 2013, 136 pages.
Christiawan et al., “Innovative Multi Technologies Collaboration for Ultra-HP/H Offshore Fracturing Stimulation,” OTC-26663-MS, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Mar. 22-25, 2016, 26 pages.
Corona et al., “Novel Washpipe-Free ICD Completion With Dissolvable Material,” OTC-28863-MS, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Apr. 30-May 3, 2018, 10 pages.
Cox et al., “Realistic Assessment of Proppant Pack Conductivity for Material Section,” SPE-84306-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 5-8, 2003, 12 pages.
Cramer et al., “Development and Application of a Downhole Chemical Injection Pump for Use in ESP Applications,” SPE 14403, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 22-25, 1985, 6 page.
Danfoss, “Facts Worth Knowing about Frequency Converters,” Handbook VLT Frequency Converters, Danfoss Engineering Tomorrow, 180 pages.
Demori et al., “A capacitive sensor system for the analysis of two-phase flows of oil and conductive water,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 2010, 163:1 (172-179), 8 pages.
Diallo et al., “Characterization of polarization attributes of seismic waves using continuous wavelet transforms,” Geophysics 71:3, May-Jun. 2006, 12 pages.
DiCarlo et al., “Three-phase relative permeability of water-wet, oil-wet, and mixed-wet sandpacks,” SPE 60767, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 27-30, 1998, SPE Journal 5(1):82-91, Mar. 2000, 10 pages.
Dixit et al., “A pore-level investigation of relative permeability hysteresis in water-wet systems,” SPE 37233, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 1997 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Feb. 18-21, 1997, SPE Journal 3(2):115-123, Jun. 1998, 9 pages.
Douglas et al., “Methane clumped isotopes: Progress and potential for a new isotopic tracer,” Organic Geochemistry 113, Nov. 2017, 21 pages.
ejprescott.com [online], “Water, Sewer and Drain Fittings B-22, Flange Adaptors,” retrieved from URL <https://www.ejprescott.com/media/reference/FlangeAdaptorsB-22.pdf> retrieved on Jun. 15, 2020, available on or before Nov. 2010 via wayback machine URL <http://web.archive.org/web/20101128181255/https://www.ejprescott.com/media/reference/FlangeAdaptorsB-22.pdf>, 5 pages.
Erofeev et al., “Prediction of Porosity and Permeability Alteration Based on Machine Learning Algorithms,” Transport in Porous Media, Springer, 2019, 24 pages.
Fan et al., “Well production forecasting based on ARIMA-LSTM model considering manual operations,” Energy, Apr. 2021, 220:119708, 13 pages.
Fatt, “The network model of porous media,” Spe 574-G, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), I. Capillary Pressure Characteristics, AIME Petroleum Transactions, Dec. 1956, 207:144-181, 38 pages.
Fornarelli et al., “Flow patterns and heat transfer around six in-line circular cylinders at low Reynolds number,” JP Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Pushpa Publishing House, Allahabad, India, Feb. 2015, 11(1):1-28, 28 pages.
Frank, “Discriminating between coherent and incoherent might with metasurfaces,” Jul. 2018, 11 pages.
Gadani et al., “Effect of salinity on the dielectric properties of water,” Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics, Jun. 2012, 50: 405-410, 6 pages.
Geary et al., “Downhole Pressure Boosting in Natural Gas Wells: Results from Prototype Testing,” SPE 11406, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 20-22, 2008, 13 pages.
Gholami et al., “Applications of artificial intelligence methods in prediction of permeability in hydrocarbon reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, 122:643-656, 14 pages.
Gillard et al., “A New Approach to Generating Fracture Conductivity,” SPE-135034-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 20-22, 2010, 14 pages.
Godbole et al., “Axial Thrust in Centrifugal Pumps—Experimental Analysis,” Paper Ref: 2977, presented at the 15th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics, ICEM15, Jul. 22-27, 2012, 14 pages.
Gomaa et al., “Computational Fluid Dynamics Applied to Investigate Development and Optimization of Highly Conductive Channels within the Fracture Geometry,” SPE-179143-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (Spe), Spe Production & Operations, 32:04, Nov. 2017, 12 pages.
Gomaa et al., “Improving Fracture Conductivity by Developing and Optimizing a Channels Within the Fracture Geometry: CFD Study,” SPE-178982-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Feb. 24-26, 2016, 25 pages.
Goodfellow et al., “Generative Adversarial Nets,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014, 9 pages.
Govardhan et al., “Critical mass in vortex-induced vibration of a cylinder,” European Journal of Mechanics B/Fluids, Jan.-Feb. 2004, 23(1):17-27, 11 pages.
Gowida et al., “Data-Driven Framework to Predict the Rheological Properties of CaCl2 Brine-Based Drill-in Fluid Using Artificial Neural Network,” Energies, 2019, 12, 1880, 33 pages.
Graves et al., “Temperatures Induced by High Power Lasers: Effects on Reservoir Rock Strength and Mechanical Properties,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irvine, Texas, Oct. 20-23, 2002, 7 pages.
Gryphon Oilfield Solutions, “Echo Dissolvable Fracturing Plug,” EchoSeries, Dissolvable Fracturing Plugs, Aug. 2018, 1 page.
Guo et al., “Convolutional Neural Networks for Steady Flow Approximation,” Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), presented at the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining—KDD, San Francisco, California, Aug. 13-17, 2016, 10 pages.
Halliday et al., “Interferometric ground-roll removal: Attenuation of scattered surface waves in single-sensor data,” XP001553286, Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), Geophysics, 75:2, Mar. 1, 2010, 11 pages.
Harstad et al., “Field Performance Evaluation of a Non-Radioactive MPFM in Challenging Conditions in the Middle East,” 35th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Oct. 24-26, 2017, 19 pages.
Heiba et al., “Percolation theory of two-phase relative permeability,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Reservoir Engineering, Feb. 1992, 7(1):123-132, 11 pages.
Hua et al., “Comparison of Multiphase Pumping Techniques for Subsea and Downhole Applications,” SPE 146784, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2011, Oil and Gas Facilities, Feb. 2012, 11 pages.
Hui and Blunt, “Effects of wettability on three-phase flow in porous media” American Chemical Society (ACS), J. Phys. Chem., Feb. 2000, 104(16):3833-3845, 13 pages.
Huiyun et al., “Review of intelligent well technology,” Petroleum, Sep. 2020, 6(3):226-233, 8 pages.
Juarez and Taylor, “Field test of a distributed fiber-optic intrusion sensor system for long perimeters,” Applied Optics, Apr. 2007, 46(11), 4 pages.
Karimi et al., “Design and Dynamic Characterization of an Orientation Insensitive Microwave Water-Cut Sensor,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Jan. 2018, 66(1):530-539, 10 pages.
Keiser, “Optical fiber communications,” 26-57, McGraw Hill, 2008, 16 pages.
Kern et al., “Propping Fractures With Aluminum Particles,” SPE-1573-G-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Journal of Per. Technology, Jun. 1961, 13(6):583-589, 7 pages.
Kim et al., “Generation of Synthetic Density Log Data Using Deep Learning Algorithm at the Golden Field in Alberta, Canada,” Geofluids, 2020, 26 pages.
Krag et al., “Preventing Scale Deposition Downhole Using High Frequency Electromagnetic AC Signals from Surface Enhance Production Offshore Denmark,” SPE-170898-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 27-29, 2014, 10 pages.
laserfocusworld.com [online], “High-Power Lasers: Fiber lasers drill for oil,” Dec. 5, 2012, retrieved on May 31, 2018, retrieved from URL: <https://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume 48/issue-12/world-news/high-power-lasers-fiber-lasers-drill-for-oil.html>, 4 pages.
Li and Nozaki, “Application of Wavelet Cross-Correlation Analysis to a Plane Turbulent Jet,” JSME International Journal Series B, 40:1, Feb. 15, 1997, 9 pages.
Li et al., “In Situ Estimation of Relative Permeability from Resistivity Measurements,” EAGE/The Geological Society of London, Petroleum Geoscience, 2014, 20:143-151, 10 pages.
Ling et al., “A fast SVD for multilevel block Handkel matrices with minimal memory storage,” Numerical Algorithms, Baltzer, Amsterdam, 69:4, Oct. 28, 2014, 17 pages.
Liu and Fomel, “Seismic data analysis using local time-frequency decomposition,” Geophysical Prospecting 61:3, May 2013, 21 pages.
Loh et al., “Deep learning and data assimilation for real-time production prediction in natural gas wells,” 2018, 7 pages.
machinedesign.com [online], Frances Richards, “Motors for efficiency: Permanent-magnet, reluctance, and induction motors compared,” Apr. 2013, retrieved on Nov. 11, 2020, retrieved from URL <https://www.machinedesign.com/motors-drives/article/21832406/motors-for-efficiency-permanentmagnet-reluctance-and-induction-motors-compared>, 14 pages.
Mahmud et al., “Effect of network topology on two-phase imbibition relative permeability,” Transport in Porous Media, Feb. 2007, 66(3):481-493, 14 pages.
Mallat and Zhang, “Matching Pursuits With Time-Frequency Dictionaries,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 41:12, Dec. 1993, 19 pages.
Mehta et al., “Improving the virtual source method by wavefield separation,” Geophysics 72:4, Jul.-Aug. 2007, 8 pages.
Mehta et al., “Strengthening the virtual-source method for time-lapse monitoring,” Geophysics 73:3, May-Jun. 2008, 8 pages.
Meyer et al., “Theoretical Foundation and Design Formulae for Channel and Pillar Type Propped Fractures—A Method to Increase Fracture Conductivity,” SPE-170781-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 27-29, 2014, 25 pages.
Mirza, “The Next Generation of Progressive Cavity Multiphase Pumps use a Novel Design Concept for Superior Performance and Wet Gas Compression,” Flow Loop Testing, BHR Group, 2007, 9 pages.
Mirza, “Three Generations of Multiphase Progressive Cavity Pumping,” Cahaba Media Group, Upstream Pumping Solutions, Winter 2012, 6 pages.
Monteiro et al., “Uncertainty analysis for production forecast in oil wells,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, May 2017, 11 pages.
Muswar et al., “Physical Water Treatment in the Oil Field Results from Indonesia,” SPE 113526, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 18-20, 2010, 11 pages.
Mutyala et al., “Microwave applications to oil sands and petroleum: A review,” Fuel Process Technol, 2010, 91:127-135, 9 pages.
Nagy et al., “Comparison of permeability testing methods,” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 399-402, 4 pages.
Nourbakhsh et al., “Embedded sensors and feedback loops for iterative improvement in design synthesis for additive manufacturing,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), presented at the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conference and Information in Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC, 9 pages.
O'brien et al., “StarWars Laser Technology for Gas Drilling and Completions in the 21st Century,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 3-6, 1999, 10 pages.
Ono et al., “Measurement of a Doubly Substituted Methane Isotopologue, 13CH3D, by Tubable Infrared Laser Direct Absorption Spectroscopy,” Analytical Chemistry, 86, Jun. 2014, 8 pages.
Palisch et al., “Determining Realistic Fracture Conductivity and Understanding its Impact on Well Performance—Theory and Field Examples,” SPE-106301-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Jan. 29-31, 2007, 13 pages.
Parker, “About Gerotors,” Parker Haffinfin Corp, 2008, 2 pages.
Pevzner et al., “Repeatability analysis of land time-lapse seismic data: CO2CRC Otway pilot project case study,” Geophysical Prospecting 59, Jan. 2011, 12 pages.
Poollen et al., “Hydraulic Fracturing—FractureFlow Capacity vs Well Productivity,” SPE-890-G, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at 32nd Annual Fall Meeting of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Oct. 6-9, 1957, published as Petroleum Transactions AIME 213, 1958, 5 pages.
Poollen, “Productivity vs Permeability Damage in Hydraulically Produced Fractures,” Paper 906-2-G, American Petroleum Institute, presented at Drilling and Production Practice, Jan. 1, 1957, 8 pages.
Purcell, “Capillary pressures—their measurement using mercury and the calculation of permeability therefrom,” Petroleum Transactions, AIME, presented at the Branch Fall Meeting, Oct. 4-6, 1948, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Feb. 1949, 1(2):39-48, 10 pages.
Qin et al., “Signal-to-Noise Ratio Enhancement Based on Empirical Mode Decomposition in Phase-Sensitive Optical Time Domain Reflectometry Systems,” Sensors, MDPI, 17:1870, Aug. 14, 2017, 10 pages.
Rzeznik et al., “Two Year Results of a Breakthrough Physical Water Treating System for the Control of Scale in Oilfield Applications,” SPE114072, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the 2008 SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference, May 28-29, 2008, 11 pages.
Salehi et al., “Laser drilling—drilling with the power of light,” Gas Technology Institute Report, 2000- 2007 period report, Chicago, IL, 318 pages.
San-Roman-Alergi et al., “Machine learning and the analysis of high-power electromagnetic interaction with subsurface matter,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, Mar. 18-21, 2019, 11 pages.
San-Roman-Alerigi et al., “Geomechanical and thermal dynamics of distributed and far-field dielectric heating of rocks assisted by nano-enablers—A numerical exploration,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Nov. 13-16, 2017, 21 pages.
San-Roman-Alerigi et al., “Numerical Modeling of Thermal and Mechanical Effects in Laser-Rock Interaction—an Overview,” presented at the 50th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, TX, Jun. 26-29, 2016; American Rock Mechanics Association, 2016, 11 pages.
Sawaryn et al., “A Compendium of Directional Calculations Based on the Minimum Curvature Method,” SPE-84246-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Drilling & Completions 20:1, Jan. 2005, 24-36, 13 pages.
Schlumberger, “AGH: Advanced Gas-Handling Device,” Product Sheet, retrieved from URL: <http://www.slb.com/˜/media/Files/artificial_lift/product_sheets/ESPs/advanced_gas_handling_ps.pdf>, Jan. 2014, 2 pages.
Schöneberg, “Wet Gas Compression with Twin Screw Pumps,” Bornemann Pumps, Calgary Pump Symposium 2005, 50 pages.
Simpson et al., “A Touch, Truly Multiphase Downhole Pump for Unconventional Wells,” SPE-185152-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Electric Submersible Pump Symposium, the Woodlands, Texas, Apr. 24-28, 2017, 20 pages.
Sulzer Technical Review, “Pushing the Boundaries of Centrifugal Pump Design,” Oil and Gas, Jan. 2014, 2 pages.
Sun et al., “Comparison of declin curve analysis DCA with recursive neural networks RNN for production forecast of multiple wells,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Western Regional Meeting, Apr. 2018, 11 pages.
Takahashi et al., “Degradation Study on Materials for Dissolvable Frac Plugs,” URTEC-2901283-MS, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTC), presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Jul. 23-25, 2018, 9 pages.
Terves, “TervAlloy Degradable Magnesium Alloys,” Terves Engineered Response, Engineered for Enhanced Completion Efficiency, Feb. 2018, 8 pages.
Thompson et al., “Designing and Validating 2D Reservoir Models,” SPE-188066-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ATSE, Apr. 2017, 13 pages.
Tinsley and Williams, “A new method for providing increased fracture conductivity and improving stimulation results,” SPE-4676-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Journal of Petroleum Technology, Nov. 1975, 27(11), 7 pages.
tm4.com [online], “Outer rotor for greater performance,” available on or before Dec. 5, 2017, via internet archive: Wayback Machine URL <https://web.archive.org/web/20171205163856/https://www.tm4.com/technology/electric-motors/external-rotor-motor-technology/>, retrieved on May 17, 2017, retrieved from URL <https://www.tm4.com/technology/electric-motors/external-rotor-motor-technology/>, 2 pages.
towardsdatascience.com [online], “K-Means Clustering—Explained,” Yildrim, Mar. 2020, retrieved on May 19, 2021, retrieved from URL <https://towardsdatascience.com/k-means-clustering-explained-4528df86a120#:˜:text=K%2Dmeans%20clustering%20aims%20to,methods%20to%20measure%20the%20distance>, 12 pages.
towardsdatascience.com [online], “Support vector machine—introduction to machine learning algorithms,” Ghandi, Jul. 7, 2018, retrieved May 19, 2021, retrieved from URL <https://towardsdatascience.com/support-vector-machine-introduction-to-machine-learning-algorithms-934a444fca47>, 12 pages.
Trickett et al., “Robust rank-reduction filtering for erratic noise,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), presented at the SEG Las Vergas 2012 Annual Meeting, Nov. 4-9, 2012, 5 pages.
Ulrych et al., “Tutorial: Signal and noise separation: Art and science,” Geophysics 64:5, Sep.-Oct. 1999, 9 pages.
Vaferi et al., “Modeling and analysis of effective thermal conductivity of sandstone at high pressure and temperature using optimal artificial neural networks,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2014, 119, 10 pages.
Van der Neut and Bakulin, “Estimating and correcting the amplitude radiation pattern of a virtual source,” Geophysics 74:2, Mar.-Apr. 2009, 10 pages.
Van der Neut et al., “Controlled-source interferometric redatuming by crosscorrelation and multidimensional deconvolution in elastic media, ” Geophysics 76:4, Jul.-Aug. 2011, 14 pages.
Van der Neut, “Interferometric redatuming by multidimensional deconvulution,” Thesis for the degree of Master of Applied Geophysics, Technische Universiteit Delft, Dec. 17, 2012, 295 pages.
Vesnaver et al., “Geostatistical integration of near-surface geophysical data,” Geophysical Prospecting, 2006, 54:6 (763-777), 15 pages.
Vincent, “Examining Our Assumptions—Have Oversimplifications Jeopardized our Ability to Design Optimal Fracture Treatments,” SPE-119143-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Jan. 19-21, 2009, 51 pages.
Vincent, “Five Things You Didn't Want to Know about Hydraulic Fractures, ” ISRM-ICHF-2013-045, presented at the International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing: An ISRM specialized Conference, May 20-22, 2013, 14 pages.
Vysloukh, “Chapter 8: Stimulated Raman Scattering,” Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 1990, 298-302, 5 pages.
Walker et al., “Proppants, We Don't Need No Proppants—A Perspective of Several Operators,” SPE-38611-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 5-8, 1997, 8 pages.
Wang and et al., “Real-Time Distributed Vibration Monitoring System Using (1)-OTDR”, IEEE Sensors Journal, 17:5, Mar. 1, 2017, 9 pages.
Wang et al., “Design and Calculation of Complex Directional-Well Trajectories on the Basis of the Minimum-Curvature Method,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), SPE Drilling and Completion 34:2 (173-188), Jun. 2019, 16 pages.
Wang et al., “Rayleigh scattering in few-mode optical fibers,” Scientific reports, 6:35844, Oct. 2016, 8 pages.
Wapenaar and Fokkema, “Green's function representations for seismic interferometry,” Geophysics 71:4, Jul.-Aug. 2006, 14 pages.
wikipedia.org [online], “Hankel matrix,” retrieved on Oct. 4, 2020, retrieved from URL <https://eri.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harikelmatrix>, Aug. 7, 2020, 5 pages.
Williams, “A new method for providing increased fracture conductivity and improving stimulation results,” SPE-4676-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Journal of Petroleum Technology, 27:11 (1319-1325), 1975, 7 pages.
Wood, “Predicting porosity, permeability and water saturation applying an optimized nearest-neighbour, machine-learning and data-mining network of well-log data,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 54 pages.
Wylde et al., “Deep Downhole Chemical Injection on BP-Operated Miller: Experience and Learning,” SPE 92832, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 2005 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, May 11-12, 2005, SPE Production & Operations, May 2006, 6 pages.
Xiao et al., “Induction Versus Permanent Magnet Motors for ESP Applications,” SPE-192177-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Apr. 23-26, 2018, 15 pages.
Yamate et al., “Optical Sensors for the Exploration of Oil and Gas,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Aug. 2017, 35(16), 8 pages.
Yu et al., “Borehole seismic survey using multimode optical fibers in a hybrid wireline,” Measurement, Sep. 2018, 125:694-703, 10 pages.
Yu et al., “Wavelet-Radon domain dealiasing and interpolation of seismic data,” Geophysics 72:2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, 9 pages.
Zeng et al., “Optimal Selection of Stimulation Wells Using a Fuzzy Multicriteria Methodology,” Mathmatical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 13 pages.
Zhan et al., “Characterization of Reservoir Heterogeneity Through Fluid Movement Monitoring with Deep Electromagnetic and Pressure Measurements,” SPE 116328, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 21-24, 2008, 16 pages.
Zhao and Burnstad, “A new virtual source redatuming procedure to improve land 4D repeatability,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), presented a the 2015 SEG Annual Meeting, Oct. 18-23, 2015, 4 pages.
Zhao et al., “Virtual-source imaging and repeatability for complex near surface,” Scientific Reports: Nature Search, 9:16656, 2019, 18 pages.
Zinati, “Using Distributed Fiber-Optic Sensing Systems to Estimate Inflow and Reservoir Properties,” Technische Universiteit Delft, 2014, 135 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20230221460 A1 Jul 2023 US