MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992010067 · doi:10.2118/150593-pa

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

2013· article· en· W1992010067 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringOil in placeEnvironmental scienceCombustionSecondary air injectionOil fieldDrillingCompletion (oil and gas wells)Oil productionEnhanced oil recoveryGeologyWaste managementEngineeringPetroleumMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 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 1970s, with some enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) projects [e.g., cyclicsteam stimulations (CSSs) and in-situ combustion (ISC)] attempted in the early 1980s. However, the area was essentially noncommercial after the 1986 oil-price collapse. In order to regain commerciality, the operators implemented progressing cavity pumps (PCPs) and horizontal drilling, which have proved to be a success. Even with these advances, though, recovery is estimated to be less than 10% of the original oil in place (OOIP). 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 10 years. After a brief primary-production period, the CTD pilot began in 1980 and consisted of three stages. In the first stage, CSSs were performed on individual wells during the first 2 years. In the next 4 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 4 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 has it 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 difficulty because of 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 an 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)0.001
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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