Testing and History Matching ES-SAGD (Using Hexane)
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 For the first time, we present in public domain, experimental and history-matched results of 2D scaled laboratory testing of ES-SAGD with hexane as the co-injected solvent. Experimental results of ES-SAGD (with hexane) were also compared with the equivalent SAGD. The 2 experiments, which were conducted at the Alberta Research Council's Thermal Gravity laboratory, are 2-D high pressure/high temperature experiments and were conducted at 2100 kPag +/− 50 kPag. The comparison of ES-SAGD and SAGD experiments shows that ES-SAGD using hexane performed better than an equivalent SAGD experiment. The energy consumption per unit oil recovered for ES-SAGD was lower than that of SAGD (11.5% less). The average oil recovery within the first 500 minutes (i.e. 11.3 years at field-scale) for the ES-SAGD process was also much higher (~10.93% higher). The ES-SAGD result was history-matched with a commercial reservoir simulator (CMG STARS). The history-matched ES-SAGD experiment gave satisfactory results in terms of oil production rates, cumulative oil production, and temperature distributions. The results presented in the paper provide data that can be scaled to field and assist in the design, optimization and parameter selection when ES-SAGD (with hexane or a pseudo-hexane solvents mixture) is considered as a recovery technology. Multi-pattern simulations based on history-matched data of a single well pair (pattern) show that multi-well pair (pattern) simulations can provide a suitable approximate analog for multi-pattern experiments, which can be scaled and used for planning and optimizing a pilot or a small-scale commercial project.
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