MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963767207 · doi:10.2118/89386-ms

Alkaline-Polymer Flooding of the David Pool, Lloydminster Alberta

2004· article· en· W1963767207 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil in placeWell stimulationWorkoverPetroleum engineeringGeologyFlood mythWater injection (oil production)Residual oilProduced waterPetroleumReservoir engineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An alkaline-polymer flood was implemented in the center of the David Field (now called Black Creek) outside of Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada. Simultaneously, waterfloods were conducted in the same reservoir to the north, west, and south of the chemical flood area. The alkaline-polymer area produced 5.7% OOIP by primary production from 1969 to 1978. Waterflood production from 1978 to June 1987 produced an additional 25.5% OOIP, for a total primary plus waterflood oil recovery of 31.2% OOIP. Average primary plus waterflood production of the north, west, and south waterflood areas as of September 2001 is 51.9% OOIP with an average oil cut of 2% in the three-waterflood areas. Alkali plus polymer co-injection was initiated in the David Field during June 1987. The project has an irregular pattern consisting of seven injection wells and eighteen production wells on twenty acre spacing. Water followed the tapered polymer slug. Oil cut in the alkaline-polymer flood area is 1.5%. Alkaline-polymer injection produced an incremental 21.1% OOIP. Primary, waterflood, and alkaline-polymer flood oil production is 73.0% OOIP. Total project cost is C$7,284,000 for a chemical mixing plant with water softening, drilling of fourteen new wells, purchase of injected chemicals, and engineering and design expenses. Incremental chemical cost per produced barrel of oil is C$1.41/bbl or US$0.99/bbl. Total cost per incremental barrel is C$3.53 or US$2.48. Selection of injected chemicals was based on a laboratory design process. Fluid-fluid screening, linear corefloods, and radial corefloods were performed to develop the most economically and technically viable injected solution. Surfactant was eliminated from the injected solution based on coreflood data, capillary theory, and Taber number calculations. Because fourteen new wells were drilled just prior to alkaline-polymer solution injection and the project was started when the oil cut was 40%, performance is difficult to interpret the alkaline-polymer flood in a conventional manner. This paper provides an interpretive analysis of the David Pool alkaline-polymer flood performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it