Field Results for Recovering Oil from A Steam Project Pressure Isolation Wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Lloydminster Saskatchewan area Pikes Peak steam project has been on production since 1982. A key part of the development strategy was use of an undeveloped pressure isolation wall to allow the two halves of the pool to be developed using different time schedules and exploitation processes. Use of the pressure isolation wall allowed different exploitation options to be used, but during late project life the oil left in the wall needed to be recovered to enhance project economics. A significant challenge to recovery of the oil in the wall was the lack of pressure containment or oil saturation on both flanks, resulting in the need for a very gentle recovery process to avoid pushing the oil outside the wall. On the basis of numerical simulation results the recovery process selected for the wall was use of two CSS horizontal wells operated in a gentle manner. After the horizontal wells were drilled, however, temperature logs showed the reservoir surrounding one of the horizontal wells had already been heated by offsetting steam injection, and that well has been continually produced at good rates without the need for steam stimulation. The second new horizontal wall well has been successfully operated using the CSS process designed using numerical simulation. The results of this field study show that the oil in a wall used to pressure isolate sections of a steam project pool can be economically recovered without pushing the oil into the adjacent depleted areas by use of processes designed to account for local wall conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".