CHOPS in Jilin Province, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Taobao Oilfield has been producing viscous oil (μ = 1850 mPa.s @ 18°C) with sand for several years from a fine-grained reservoir on the west flank of the Songliao Basin in northern Jilin Province, China. The practices used closely follow the approaches developed in Canada in the last 15 years, but production is from a much shallower depth (-160m) and from a field that is fault-controlled and possesses some dip, rather than being stratigraphically controlled. The reservoir is composed of unconsolidated sands with high porosity (~35%) and high permeability (5 Darcy), suggesting a good prospect for CHOPS. The aggregate thickness of the sands is about 15 m with a formation thickness of 28 m; individual layers are 1-6 m thick, with an average of 4 m, substantially thinner than the beds usually exploited in Canada. Over 75% of the oil in place is in layers less than 5 m thick. The first well started production in Aug 13, 1997. At present, there are 71 wells producing oil in Block 87 and Block 92. A crude oil recirculating system from the stocktank is used to keep oil flowing down the annulus to prevent blockage of the well. Conventional production using progressing cavity pumps is still low, the best wells are only producing approximately 25-30 b/d, but production can apparently be sustained for as long as 16 months. Taobao Oilfield initiated CHOPS in approximately 22 wells in Blocks Bai 87 and Bai 92. The sand cuts range from 0.1 to 10% by volume, which is a broad range for a single field, compared to Canadian experience. Water cut is very reasonable, from as low as 0% to as high as 52%, with an average of 5-8%. The article will review the geology and the production history of the Taobao CHOPS project to date. Petrophysical parameters and reservoir properties will be presented and compared to typical Canadian and Venezuelan information. Case histories from existing developments are used to illustrate how technologies developed in Canada have allowed the difficult heavy oil fields to be developed. Finally, the future direction for this CHOPS project is discussed, aiming at improving the oil production rate and the oil recovery. It appears that production gains are possible through improvements in operational practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".