MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031253084 · doi:10.2118/79004-ms

Wellbore Sinuosity and Its Effect on Production and Recovery from Horizontal Wells Along the Cummings/Dina Channel Trend in Senlac and Winter Saskatchewan

2002· article· en· W2031253084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K.A. Miller, Bill Cameron, LU Qing, Lew A. Hayes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinuosityPetroleum engineeringWellboreOil productionGeologyChannel (broadcasting)Completion (oil and gas wells)Hydrology (agriculture)Oil wellWater wellEnvironmental scienceCurrent (fluid)Water cutWell controlPetroleumInjection wellProduction (economics)DrillingGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over 500 horizontal wells have been drilled into the Cummings/Dina channel trend between Senlac and Winter since 1990. These wells produce 13 – 14 API oil with a gas free viscosity of 3600 cp from a depth of 700 meters. Production peaks at about 20 to 60 m3/d oil with 10% water and 1.5% sand. Oil production eventually declines as water cut increases. Sanding events can limit oil production rates and recovery. Wellbore trajectory control has improved significantly in the last 10 years, the latest improvement being ‘inclination at the bit.’ Selected wells were analyzed to determine the key factors between sinuosity and production rate and ultimate recovery, and the changes in the effect of these key factors over the last 10 years. Incentive and methodology for development of current flatter wells is discussed, and predictions for production from current flatter wells are given.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207