Comparison of CSS and SAGD Performance in the Clearwater Formation at Cold Lake
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data are available for four SAGD projects and two CSS projects operating in the Clearwater formation at Cold Lake. This paper uses these data to compare the energy efficiency and recovery performance of SAGD and CSS. For the conditions outlined in this paper, field data demonstrate that: Bitumen recovery using SAGD is generally uneconomic in the Clearwater formation.Bitumen recovery using CSS in the Clearwater formation:Produces as much as 50% or more bitumen/m3 external gas consumed than SAGD; andWill result in significantly higher overall bitumen recoveries (as a percentage of OBIP) than SAGD. These observations are consistent with industry experience in non-Clearwater SAGD and CSS operations. In addition, operating and design data for commercial SAGD and CSS projects is used to demonstrate that: Due to differences in steam quality, SOR is not an appropriate indicator of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency comparisons are more appropriately based on the quantity of external gas required to produce 1-m3 of bitumen.To convert SOR data to an external gas requirement, the following conversion factors are proposed: 1-m3 wet (80% quality) steam requires approximately 60-m3 gas.1-m3 dry (100% quality) steam requires approximately 75-m3 gas.The use of project specific EBIP, versus OBIP, in calculating recovery makes meaningful comparisons difficult.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it