Lloydminster, Saskatchewan Vertical Well SAGD Field Test Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Husky Energy's Pikes Peak steam project has been highly successful using CSS and follow-up steam drive for vertical and directional wells located on the bottomwater-free structural high inside the oil/water contact of the Waseca channel sand reservoir(1). In some areas, recoveries of up to 90% have been achieved with a cumulative steam/oil ratio (SOR) of less than 3.0. Use of CSS with follow-up drive has not been successful where bottomwater is present outside the oil/water contact. Some improvement in performance was achieved using large CSS slugs and high-steam injection rates, but in some locations CSS performances were still poor and conversion from CSS to drive has not been successful in any location. In 2008 Husky initiated a field test of a single vertical well SAGD configuration in an area outside the oil/water contact to evaluate an alternate process in which the "conventional" CSS performance of 10 wells was poor from the second or third stimulation onward. The results from the first single vertical SAGD well pilot demonstrated that a single vertical well SAGD configuration could be successfully completed and operated. The field data are being evaluated using empirical and numerical modelling methods to develop completion and operating strategies that optimize future produced oil rates and SORs. Another benefit of the field test was its demonstration of a low-cost and rapid method to help determine if a reservoir has sufficient vertical permeability for horizontal well SAGD to work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".