MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039266364 · doi:10.2118/156962-ms

An Analysis of the Caprock Failure at Joslyn

2012· article· en· W2039266364 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaprockGeologyPetroleum engineeringFracture (geology)Shear (geology)Geotechnical engineeringMining engineeringPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A significant caprock failure occurred on the Joslyn SAGD property in 2006, which has had a wide impact on the approval process for future SAGD projects. Two reports were released by the Alberta Government: "Total E&P Canada Ltd., Surface Steam Release of May 18, 2006, Joslyn Creek SAGD Thermal Operation, ERCB Staff Review and Analysis, February 11th, 2010" and "Summary of Investigations into the Joslyn May 18th, 2006 Steam Release, Total E&P Canada Ltd.". The latter report is very large. A number of potential mechanisms are postulated without definitive resolution. The most likely failure suggested involved transmission of fluids up a 50,000 mD chimney and a pancake shaped lens of high pressure steam that resulted in a shear failure of the caprock. The author believes that this scenario is unlikely from a geological and heat transfer perspective. There are other anomalies. Peak stresses in most caprock coupled reservoir-geomechanical simulations normally peak between 3 to 7 years after start-up. However, the Joslyn failure occurred immediately after conversion from partial SAGD to full SAGD, in which the producing well was killed and a PCP pump was run. There are other issues that should be considered that include: How hydraulic fractures are initiated and propagated. The literature shows us: computer design programs that predict fracture propagation and shape,analytical solutions that also show expected fracture morphology; and,physical examples which have been dug up or coredIn addition the geological record provides excellent analogue information on the morphology of high pressure intrusions. These various types of data will be compared to the observed morphology derived from the 3D seismic. Earlier work by Edmunds and Good has shown that extremely transient conditions exist in SAGD wells that result in "geysering" or slugging within the producing well. The energy available from water and steam is enormous. The nuclear and power industry previously made these similar discoveries after a series of catastrophic failures of piping systems. Analytical and computer simulation tools from the nuclear industry will be used to show that extremely high pressure transients, many times over fracture initiation pressures, can be expected. This is the same mechanism that resulted in the catastrophic failure of MEG Energy’s Christina Lake main steam distribution line. In summary, there is every reason to believe that when hot steam was injected into a cooled (water) condensate filled well; very large pressure transients can be expected from phase changes within the piping that should result in a frac to surface.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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