MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972560457 · doi:10.2118/2009-160

Productivity Improvement in the Viking Reservoirs of West-Central Saskatchewan

2009· article· en· W1972560457 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S.G. Sayegh, Peng Luo, Y. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsProductivityGeologyEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Viking reservoirs of west-central Saskatchewan contain a large number of light oil resources, of which only approximately 10% is considered recoverable. Oil production is hindered by (a) permeability damage due to clay swelling and migration during water injection and (b) organic solid (asphaltenes/wax) precipitation due to pressure and temperature variations. The Saskatchewan Research Council conducted laboratory experiments to evaluate and address these problems. Reservoir cores were tested for permeability damage measurements using both injection and produced brine. Different additives [i.e., potassium chloride (KCl) with/without hydrochloric acid (HCl), commercial clay stabilizers, liquid CO2, and isopropyl alcohol] were assessed as permeability remedies. The results showed that injection brine caused greater permeability damage than produced brine. KCl solutions preserved permeability, whereas KCl acidized with HCl appreciably improved it in one core. None of the used commercial additives significantly improved permeability. Injection of liquid CO2 and isopropyl alcohol caused encouraging permeability improvement in some cores. Wax precipitation tests were carried out on both dead oil and live oil samples. It was found that precipitation occurred in the dead oil even at the reservoir temperature of 22 °C. Filtration tests demonstrated that the live oil was much less sensitive to wax precipitation than the dead oil. Introduction The Viking horizon of the Kindersley area of west-central Saskatchewan contains an estimated 300?106 m3 initial oil in place (IOIP), of which only about 10% is deemed to be recoverable(1). The Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) carried out an experimental study aimed at evaluating and solving two major problems that hinder effective oil production in the Viking reservoirs of west-central Saskatchewan: permeability damage due to water sensitivity of the formation and organic solid precipitation due to pressure and temperature change. Most of the Viking oil reservoirs are thin, with net pays from 2.0 to 5.4 m, and produce from depths between 640 and 750 m. The reservoir temperatures are around 23 °C, and the discovery pressures are approximately 6.4 MPa. The oil generally has densities between 840 and 870 m3/kg (37- 31 °API) and formation volume factors of about 1.1 m3/m3. Figure 1 shows a detailed map of well locations in Kindersley area in Saskatchewan. It is seen that most of the wells produce oil at rates below 1 m3/d (yellow), whereas a number of wells produce more than 10 m3/d (black). The Viking reservoirs are sandstone of Lower Cretaceous age that was deposited in a shallow marine environment(2). The reservoir rocks have variable lithology, and are from mid- to poorly consolidated and contain movable and swelling clays, such as kaolinite and montmorillonite(3,4). Due to the presence of these clays, the formation is sensitive to fresh water and this has hampered efforts to improve oil recovery by waterflooding. Organic (waxes and/or asphaltenes) solid precipitation is another major factor hindering oil production. This solid removal is costly because it requires periodic workovers as well as disruption to well flow. Consequently, productivity will be greatly improved if these two problems are alleviated or solved.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207