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 OpenAlex
Stephen Rassenfoss

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.226
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