Field Results for Recovering Oil From a Steam-Project Pressure-Isolation Wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, area Pikes Peak steam project has been onproduction since 1982. A key part of the development strategy was use of anundeveloped pressure-isolation wall to allow the two halves of the pool to bedeveloped with different time schedules and exploitation processes. Use of thepressure-isolation wall allowed different exploitation options to be used, butduring late project life the oil left in the wall needed to be recovered toenhance project economics. A significant challenge in recovering the oil in thewall was the lack of pressure containment or oil saturation on both flanks,resulting in the need for a gentle recovery process to avoid pushing the oiloutside the wall. On the basis of numerical-simulation results, the recoveryprocess selected for the wall was use of two cyclic-steam-stimulation (CSS)horizontal wells operated in a gentle manner. After the horizontal wells weredrilled, however, temperature logs showed the reservoir surrounding one of thehorizontal wells had already been heated by offsetting steam injection, andthat well has been continually produced at good rates without the need forsteam stimulation. The second new horizontal wall well was initially operatedsuccessfully using the CSS process designed using numerical simulation, butthat well is now also being operated in an external drive mode. The results ofthis field study show that the oil in a wall used to pressure isolate sectionsof a steam-project pool can be recovered economically without pushing the oilinto the adjacent depleted areas by use of processes designed to account forlocal 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".