MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045705325 · doi:10.2118/2005-107

Steaming Uphill: Using J-Wells for CSS at Peace River

2005· article· en· W2045705325 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S. J. Brissenden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
FundersShell Canada
KeywordsSteamingGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Shell Canada has tested several well designs at its Peace River in-situ operation, including vertical wells, horizontal wells, SAGD horizontal well pairs and multi-lateral wells. These well designs have been used with recovery processes such as PCSD (pressure cycle steam drive), steam drive, SAGD and CSS (cyclic steam stimulation). CSS has given the most economic oil-steam ratios of these recovery processes. A recent improvement in CSS well design has been to drill laterals from the base to the top of the reservoir at angles above 90 degrees. This "J-well" design acts as a vertical separator that helps distribute steam to the end of the wellbore, prevents steam condensate from inhibiting injection, heats the low permeability Estuarine sands at the top of the reservoir and should retain gas and steam better in the reservoir during the production cycle. The initial performance of the first J-wells at Peace River has been encouraging with higher oil-steam ratios than regular CSS wells and more effective heat distribution observed on time-lapse seismic. Introduction The Peace River heavy oilfield is located in northern Alberta, Canada. Shell's leases in the area contain around 1.1 billion m3 (7 billion barrels) of 7.5 degree API oil in a Bluesky/Gething Lower Cretaceous sandstone reservoir. The dead-oil viscosity at reservoir temperature is around 100,000 centipoise. The Peace River field was discovered by well Shell Cadotte number 1 in 1951. Pilot-scale production from the Peace River field began in 1979 with the Peace River In-Situ Project (PRISP), followed by the Peace River Expansion Project (PREP) in 1985. PRISP and PREP applied the Shell-patented Pressure Cycle Steam Drive (PCSD) recovery method, which makes use of a thin basal water zone to obtain adequate steam injectivity in vertical wells. PRISP was quite successful, with a 40% recovery and a cumulative oil-steam ratio (OSR) of around 0.3. However, PREP performance was affected by inter-cluster interference, resulting in a sub-economic OSR of less than 0.2. In 1992 Shell was an early adopter of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) technology with the drilling of two 1000 m long well-pairs. This was followed by ten more SAGD well-pairs in 1996 and 1997. However, SAGD also proved to be ineffective at Peace River with a cumulative OSR of less than 0.2. The poor performance of SAGD at Peace River is attributed to limited vertical development of the SAGD steam chamber, caused by the permeability contrast between the higher permeability Fluvial zone at the base of the reservoir and the lower permeability Estuarine zone at the top. In 1996 Shell began testing Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) with multi-lateral horizontal wells. CSS is a more robustrecovery process than SAGD and the high injection pressures, together with extended laterals drilled in the reservoir, enabled good steam injection rates without the need for injecting in the basal water zone. The performance of the CSS wells has been good, with typical early cycle OSRs of more than 0.4, which issufficient to provide the basis for expanded commercial development of the field.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207