Case History and Appraisal of the West Buffalo Red River Unit High-Pressure Air Injection Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The West Buffalo Red River Unit (WBRRU) project is one of the three High-Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) projects in the Buffalo Field. It produces from the Red River reservoirs, which are deep (~8,400 ft), thin (~15 ft), hot (215 °F), low permeability (~10 md) carbonates. The unit comprising 4,560 acres with 15 producing wells was formed in July 1987 and began air injection operations four months later. Before unitization the oil production was declining steadily but the response to air injection has resulted in a significant production increase over its historical decline. While unit production in July 1987 was 200 BOPD, a peak production rate of 500 BOPD was achieved in January 1990 with 15 producing wells, after the injection of 2 BSCF of air. As of December 2006 about 23 BSCF of air had been injected, for a cumulative oil production of 2.3 MMSTB since the beginning of injection. This paper reviews the production and economic performance of the WBRRU high-pressure air injection project to date. The production performance analysis includes estimates of incremental oil recovery due to air injection using conventional decline curve analysis, the expected ultimate recovery using the volume-burned method, and a discussion on how air utilization has changed over time. A detailed economic evaluation is carried out using different economic yardsticks such as net present value and incremental rate of return. A discussion on the impact of oil price on the economic profitability of the project is presented as wells as an estimate of the minimum oil price required for attractive economic results. To date, the HPAI project in WBRRU continues to be a technical and economic success. In year 2005 old vertical producers were re-entered to drill horizontal laterals and take advantage of the great reservoir response to injection.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".