MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026960309 · doi:10.2118/139200-ms

Dina Cretáceos Field Chemical EOR: From Screening to Pilot Design

2010· article· en· W2026960309 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersEcopetrol
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil in placeEnhanced oil recoveryGeologyInjection wellPetrophysicsReservoir simulationOil fieldWater injection (oil production)Completion (oil and gas wells)Oil productionEnvironmental scienceSedimentary depositional environmentStructural basinPetroleumGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dina Cretaceous Field is located in the Upper Magdalena Valley (UMV) Basin, Colombia. Producing reservoir consist in a marine-transitional depositional environment with good sand continuity and thickness. Ecopetrol S.A operates the field. The field was discovered in 1969. Primary production peaked at 6,500 BOPD. Peripheral water injection started in 1985 reaching a maximum oil production rate of approximately 10,000 BOPD. Current recovery factor is estimated in 32% of the OOIP with water cuts of 96%. Water injection is operating under adverse mobility ratios (M > 4) due to crude oil viscosity (10.8 cp) at reservoir conditions. As a strategy to increase oil recovery an integrated study started in October 2009. Main objective of the multidisciplinary group was to evaluate different IOR/EOR technologies, select the most promising technology and identify areas of the field suitable to implement a pilot project. First phase of the study was a comprehensive evaluation of injection-production history of the field and IOR/EOR screening. Simultaneously, the team was also focused on updating the history match of the field injection-production history. The numerical model was based on a high-resolution geological model with a detailed lithological and petrophysical description. Once a reasonable history match was achieved the model was converted into a commercial platform to simulate chemical EOR processes. The analysis of injection-production history did not support strong water channeling due to the presence of thief zones. IOR/EOR screening results confirmed the feasibility of polymer-based technologies due to the adverse mobility ratios and remaining oil saturation in the reservoir. Reservoir analogs identified during the screening study, conceptual simulations and laboratory studies concluded that the injection of Colloidal Dispersion Gels (CDG) shows high potential to increase oil recoveries economically in Dina Field. A pilot area was selected ranking different options and operational constraints. Pilot project design scheduled for the last quarter of 2010 was based on a sector model of the field. This study provides guidance to effectively evaluate and implement chemical EOR technologies to revitalize mature water floods. A proper decision framing, availability of data and commitment of management and decision makers are key elements to perform EOR evaluations and implementation is short periods of time.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.296
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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
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