Kuparuk MWAG Project after 20 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Through many phases of expansion, the Kuparuk hydrocarbon miscible water-alternating-gas (MWAG) project has grown from 10 patterns on 2 drillsites (Small Scale EOR, or SSEOR) to today&s 283 patterns on 32 drillsites. It now covers an area with almost 4 billion barrels of STOOIP and has generated an estimated 120 MMSTB of incremental oil sales. The original goals of the MWAG project were twofold: First, there being no available market for produced gas, to efficiently store associated gas in the reservoir (avoiding the rapid recycling of gas observed with other processes); and second, to generate incremental tertiary oil production. The project is approaching its target maturity, especially in the C sand. But the lower throughput A sand has some immature patterns showing lower-than-expected tertiary oil response. Despite the relative maturity of the MWAG flood, expansion opportunities still exist. Based on fine grid compositional simulation, an expansion of MWAG to drillsite "A" is under evaluation. This paper provides a brief review of the Kuparuk MWAG project&s history, an overview of current status and flood management practices, and describes the latest investigation into further expansions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".