MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002222590 · doi:10.2118/0813-0058-jpt

Finding Pathways to Produce Heavy Oil From Canadian Carbonates

2013· article· en· W2002222590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Rassenfoss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltOil sandsSynthetic crudeEngineeringPetroleumPetroleum industrySteam-assisted gravity drainageCrude oilFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringMining engineeringGeologyArchaeologyWaste managementUnconventional oilEnvironmental engineeringGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta Heavy Oil Nearly 2 million bbl of ultraheavy crude are produced each day from Canadian oil sands, but the notion of also producing bitumen from reservoirs made of carbonate rock can spark skeptical remarks. They are likely to say something like: “Carbonates are very different. In carbonates, it is just different,” said Daniel Yang, director of reservoir engineering at Laricina Energy, who has a different reading of the exploration history of formations that hold more than 400 billion bbl of the crude. Laricina has partnered with a second Calgary independent, Osum Oil Sands, to try to prove that bitumen can be commercially produced from the Grosmont formation, which holds 75% of the heavy crude known as bitumen in Alberta’s carbonates. The reality is the Grosmont is different. A pilot project by Laricina and Osum showed that the well design commonly used for oil sands is not a good fit in carbonates. But a mix of methods used for bitumen production worked well enough to convince the partners to plan a commercial test. that they plan to use for the first commercial development in the formation. The Laricina-Osum joint venture has filed for a permit to produce as much as 10,700 B/D from up to 32 wells, with first oil in 2015. Husky and Shell have also filed for permission to do pilot projects with the Alberta Energy Regulator, the agency formerly known as the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). “It is going like early development in major oil sands basins such as the Athabasca, where there were many field pilots,” said Eddy Isaacs, chief executive officer of Energy and Environment Solutions at Alberta Innovates, a provincial agency that funds research, including past carbonates work. But moving from wells producing oil in situ in the relatively consistent sandstones and unconsolidated sands to carbonates will require significant advances in production methods and simulation software. The Grosmont was born complicated. It was formed hundreds of millions of years ago from the hap-hazard deposition of marine life off a long shoreline, was chemically transformed into dolomite, followed by water flows that carved it up, widening the fractures and carving out so many holes in the rock that it created weak spots in a formation that has been lifted and crushed and filled with oil that degraded into some of the world’s heaviest crude.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.226
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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