MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038739321 · doi:10.2118/171089-ms

Can SAGD Be Exported? Potential Challenges

2014· article· en· W2038739321 on OpenAlexaffabout
José M. Alvarez, Raul Moreno, R. P. Sawatzky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In spite of its relative youthfulness as a commercial IOR technology, SAGD has had a profound impact on the development of the oil sands in northern Alberta and consequently on Alberta's economy. The path from a concept as articulated and developed by an individual research engineer, Roger Butler, to a commercial recovery technology for exploiting Alberta's oil sands has at times been a rocky one. More than 30 years of applied research and development at both the laboratory scale and the field scale by a community of researchers has been necessary to advance the technology to its current state of development. The SAGD technology has faced countless challenges since its origin. The public literature is replete with examples of challenges it has faced in the past, and others that are predicted to be just over the horizon. For example, more research and development will be required to expand SAGD to more challenging areas of the Athabasca region. The challenges will include reservoirs that have shale barriers, those that have bottom/top water zones, and those that are marginally too thin for conventional SAGD. Variants of SAGD, such as fast-SAGD, X-SAGD, and ES-SAGD, were conceived in response to the need to expand SAGD beyond the sweet spots in Alberta's oil sands where the original technology was demonstrated. Lessons learned from the application of SAGD technology in Alberta's oil sands may be useful to international producers from around the world that are interested in trying to adopt SAGD for use in their reservoirs. This paper will discuss potential challenges that may be encountered in the implementation of SAGD as the technology is migrated from its birthplace in the Athabasca oil sands to heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs around the world.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.012

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207