Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, written by Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 100525, "A Dynamic Economic Indicator To Evaluate SAGD Performance," by H. Shin, SPE, Shell Canada Ltd., and M. Polikar, SPE, U. of Alberta, prepared for the 2006 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 8-10 May. An economic indicator called simple thermal-efficiency parameter (STEP) was developed to evaluate the performance of a steam-assisted gravity-drainage (SAGD) project. A dynamic model called STEP-D was developed for use as an economic indicator under the changing conditions of the economic limit of the instantaneous steam/oil ratio (SOR) and the price of heavy oil. Introduction The economics of a SAGD project is related to several production-performance parameters. The most significant are SOR, cumulative steam/oil ratio (CSOR), ultimate recovery factor (RF), and project life. STEP is based on CSOR, calendar day oil rate (CDOR), and RF for the time corresponding to an SOR of 4. STEP's usefulness as an economic indicator was validated qualitatively as well as quantitatively. STEP was introduced to optimize SAGD operating conditions in Athabasca-, Cold Lake-, and Peace River-type reservoirs in the Alberta oil sands. This economic indicator was modified to evaluate the performance of a SAGD project under selected reservoir parameters and optimal operating conditions. STEP was found to be a useful qualitative as well as quantitative economic indicator in evaluating SAGD performance. In reality, the economics of a thermal project depends strongly on the economic limit of SOR and heavy-oil price, poil. These variable parameters are used in the economic evaluation of field projects. In this research, a dynamic model, STEP-D, was developed for use as an economic indicator under these changing conditions. For the STEP-D calculation, the economic limit of SOR was varied from 3 to 6 and the poil from U.S. $15 to $30/bbl for three oil-sands reservoirs in Alberta. Development of a Dynamic Economic Indicator Initially, STEP was used to evaluate the performance of a SAGD project under optimal conditions. It was pro-posed as a simple economic indicator, to be used instead of net present value (NPV), while determining the best SAGD operating conditions. The simulation results showed that NPV had a linear relationship with RF and CDOR, but a decreasing exponential relationship with CSOR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".