MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991896500 · doi:10.2118/150593-ms

Oil Recovery from Thin Heavy Oil Reservoirs: The Case of the Combined Thermal Drive Pilot in the Morgan Field

2011· article· en· W1991896500 on OpenAlex
D. Gutiérrez, M.G. Ursenbach, Gord Moore, Raj Mehta

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringCombustionEnvironmental scienceEnhanced oil recoverySecondary air injectionDrillingInjection wellOil fieldCompletion (oil and gas wells)Oil in placeOil productionEngineeringGeologyWaste managementPetroleumMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Morgan Field in Canada produces from the Lloydminster and Sparky sands which are thin heavy oil reservoirs. Early development of the pool was with primary vertical wells in the late 1970's, with some enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects such as cyclic steam injection and in-situ combustion attempted in the early 1980's. However, the area was essentially non-commercial after the 1986 oil price collapse. In order to regain commerciality, the operators implemented progressive cavity pumps and horizontal drilling, which have proven to be a success. Even with these advances though, recovery is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the original oil in place. One of the EOR projects attempted was the Combined Thermal Drive (CTD) pilot which was carried out in one of the sections of the field for ten years. After a brief primary production period, the CTD pilot began in 1980 and consisted of three stages. In the first stage, cyclic steam stimulations were performed on individual wells during the first two years. In the next four years, air was added to the injection stream to perform cyclic air-steam stimulations on individual wells. In the last stage, pressure cycling in-situ combustion was performed for approximately four years. In this paper, historical production and injection records were gathered to perform a technical and economic analysis of the project. After approximately 20 years since the shutdown of the project, the data indicate that this pilot has outperformed all of the other operations carried out in other areas of the field. Not only it has produced the largest amount of incremental oil of all the sections of the field, but it also managed to sustain high production rates for 10 years, which is unparalleled in the area. On the economic side, the data indicate that the project was experiencing a difficult time due to the 1986 oil price collapse. However, an economic analysis under current oil prices and costs suggests that it would have been both a technical and economic success. This air injection case history represents a good opportunity for those operators facing the challenge to develop thin heavy oil reservoirs.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.202 · 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