MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992206884 · doi:10.2118/08-06-31-cs

Interference Testing to Characterize the Injection Behaviour of a 20-Acre Pattern in the Court Field

2008· article· en· W1992206884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos A. Estrada, L. Leung, Monica Majcher, Braidon Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringInfillWater injection (oil production)GeologyInjectorWirelineOil fieldInjection wellGeobiologyInterference (communication)Well loggingPermeability (electromagnetism)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringRegional geologyHydrogeologyTelecommunicationsCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the Court Field, the middle Bakken Sand Pool has been operated as a heavy oil waterflood for over 15 years. However, unrecovered oil volumes in the pool remain attractive for improved recovery schemes. Recently, the Court Middle Bakken Reservoir model was updated to evaluate the potential for downspacing and waterflood optimization of the reservoir. The potential for 20-acre downspacing for both infill drilling and additional water injection was identified by this study. As part of the additional development program, an injector producer well pair was drilled to create a new injection pattern with reduced inter-well spacing. Reservoir pressures, water saturation and effective permeability to water in the pattern were determined by RFT and log data. Pattern characterization was complemented by an interference test, including all the wells in the pattern. Analytical and numerical tools were used in the test design. The most comprehensive results were obtained by local grid refinement of the pattern area in the full field simulation model. Unavoidable interference with a neighboring pattern during the test was predicted. In order to account for this effect, it was decided to run the test with the new injector active intermittently. The complete test design and analysis of the results are described. In addition, a comparison of pressure measurements by downhole gauge and acoustic well sounder are presented. Introduction The Court Field, located in west central Saskatchewan, produces 17 ºAPI heavy crude from the Middle Bakken Formation, using vertical wells and a waterflood recovery scheme. The Court Bakken Sand was discovered in November 1981. The Court Bakken Sand Voluntary Unit No. 1 was formed in 1988 and waterflood commenced with only 2% of OOIP produced. There are 39 producing oil wells and 21 water injection wells currently in operation within the main pool. The current recovery factor is approximately 20%, with some wells producing up to 30m3/d oil. Recently, Majcher et al.(1) presented a geological and engineering overview of the reservoir. The Middle Bakken Formation was deposited as NE-SW trending sand ridges. The pool has undergone significant collapse of the Torquay Formation with the subsequent creation of extensive post-depositional sinkholes within the Bakken. This structural deformation interrupts the lateral continuity of the sand ridge and its characterization is the most challenging to further field development and effective waterflood management. Another important Bakken heterogeneity is the change in well log signature that represents the variation in facies at the ridge edges(2). This facies distribution within the Middle Bakken correlates with the waterflood response. Majcher et al.(1) identified the potential for infill drilling of producers and injectors near the edges of the pool. An injector-producer pair was recently drilled in Section 36-033-28W3M on 20-acre spacing. An interference test with four wells was conducted to investigate how the heterogeneities described above affect the waterflood performance of the newly configured pattern.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207