MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006424424 · doi:10.2118/169154-ms

An Interim Case Study of an Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood in the Mooney Field, Alberta, Canada

2014· article· en· W2006424424 on OpenAlex
Andrew L. Watson, Gregory A. Trahan, Wayne Sorensen

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the 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

VenueSPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSasolUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOil in placePulmonary surfactantEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringOil fieldWater injection (oil production)Chemical engineeringPolymerEnvironmental scienceChemistryMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringOrganic chemistryPetroleum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery (CEOR) use is expected to increase as more production companies implement tertiary oil recovery methods. This case study provides an outline of the process used to determine the applicability of an Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) flood, how the ASP chemical package was selected and tested, and the current field trial status. The selected field for this project is the low temperature Mooney field in north-central Alberta, Canada, producing ~16° API gravity oil with a viscosity of 150 to 1,500 mPa-s from the Cretaceous Bluesky sand formation at a depth of approximately 900 meters. In 2006 a waterflood pilot test recovered an incremental 3% of the original oil in place (OOIP) over the primary production recovery (~4 to 5%). A three well polymer-only pilot was started in 2008 for 14 months and showed a total recovery of 18% OOIP suggesting a tertiary recovery method could be more successful than a waterflood. An independent laboratory tested multiple ASP packages, formulated with various surfactant types, either NaOH or Na2CO3 as the alkali in softened injection water, and with a partially hydrolyzed copolymers of acrylamide and acrylic acid. This independent reservoir screening identified several ultra-low interfacial tension ASP chemical package candidates, and core flooding confirmed increased oil recovery. Low chemical concentrations were specifically tested to minimize ASP chemical costs and downstream issues with emulsions. Economics were promising enough to proceed with company and Canadian approvals for ASP Phase One field implementation. Commercial injection began September 2011. The Phase One ASP scheme consists of 25 injectors and 26 producers. Production from the ASP flooded area increased from approximately 175 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) in summer 2011 to a current high of ~2600 BOPD in December 2013, a period of 30 months. ASP chemical injection is continuing. Some injection delays have been caused by operational issues (water source and pipeline/facility modifications). These promising oil recovery results allowed Phase Two to be approved, and it is slated to be completed in 2014. Phase Three development is in the planning stage including drilling 16 additional primary horizontal wells. The ASP flood of the Mooney field is a multi-well ASP flood that is progressing well but is still in the preliminary stages of data collection. The reservoir will continue to be monitored over the coming years to develop a comprehensive analysis of the tertiary oil recovery and how it compares with the initial laboratory ASP test results and predictions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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