MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2054976793 · doi:10.2118/00-06-03

New Life from an Old Field-PKCU #2 Waterflood

2000· article· en· W2054976793 sur OpenAlexaffabout
R. Krasey

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensCanadian Council on International Law
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPetroleum engineeringGeologyPetroleumQuarter (Canadian coin)ArchaeologyGeographyPaleontology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The Pembina Keystone Cardium Unit #2 is located on the eastern edge of the Pembina Cardium oilfield. PKCU #2 has been on primary depletion for over 40 years and was nearing the end of its economic life. In late 1995 the Pembina Exploitation Team within Canadian Oxy decided to review the area in detail one last time. The final result of the exhaustive work, which included core floods, geological review, a 3D simulation, facilities and production optimization review, and a reservoir depletion plan, was a large scale waterflood on a depleted field. It is expected that the recovery factor for the waterflood will be 20% as compared to the primary recovery factor of 11%. The over 10,000,000 BOEs of incremental reserves will be developed for < $3.00/BOE. Waterflood start up was anticipated for late summer 1998. Author's Note Since this paper was originally written the following actions have taken place. CanadianOxy and Working Interest Owner approval was granted in the third quarter of 1997. Facilities Engineering and Operations began the process of consultation with area residents and gaining pipeline right of ways. Construction was set to begin in the Summer of 1998. Within CanadianOxy at that time a review of our properties was conducted. It was decided that all of CanadianOxy's Pembina properties would be sold. All work in the field was suspended. PKCU #2, along with the rest of CanadianOxy's Pembina properties, were sold to Penn West Petroleum in December 1998. Penn West is currently reviewing a scaled down version of the Keystone Waterflood. Introduction With the discovery of the Pembina Oilfield in the mid-1950s rapid development drilling was followed by the implementation of a waterflood. Most of the Pembina Cardium was under waterflood by the mid-1960s. The main western portion of the Pembina Cardium, centered around the town of Drayton Valley, was developed using waterflood on 80-acre spacing 5-spots. The southeastern portion of the Pembina Cardium, centered around the Village of Breton, was anomalous. Most of it was developed on 160 acre spacing on primary depletion. PKCU #2 is located in the SE portion of the field. Historically any secondary recovery scheme at PKCU #2 was deemed to be too risky for some of the following reasons:The overlying conglomerate would act as a thief zoneThe low reservoir pressureThe old geologic model of the sandstone which consisted of independent sand lenses was poor for waterfloodingThe value of the gas and liquids The uncertainty and risk with waterflooding PKCU #2 meant that the project could never get corporate and partner approval until some of the following questions were answered:Can you successfully waterflood a reservoir with high gas saturation and low pressure?What is the true geologic model?What is the cost of implementing a waterflood?What production and recovery could be anticipated?What is the downside risk? The 1995 Waterflood study included the following elements which were meant to answer all questions and concerns:

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,862
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,222
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207