MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064763156 · doi:10.2118/02-01-02

Progress in the In Situ Recovery of Heavy Oils and Bitumen

2002· article· en· W2064763156 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringAsphaltSteam injectionSteamingOil sandsPetroleumSteam-assisted gravity drainageCompletion (oil and gas wells)Environmental scienceExtraction (chemistry)Waste managementGeologyEngineeringChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most of Canada's trillion barrels of petroleum consists of bitumen, and to a lesser extent, heavy oil. This total may be compared with the total Canadian production of light-medium crude oil to date, which is only 12 billion barrels. Mining is effective for the production of bitumen, but is limited to the minor fraction of the resource that is shallow; also mining involves significant environmental difficulties. The challenges of efficient in situ production are like those for other petroleum production activities:to find and define suitable reservoirs,to create conditions for oil to flow at economic rates, andto drain the reservoir systematically to obtain high recoveries. This paper discusses the following in terms of production rate, recovery, energy requirements and economic factors. Each topic is a step, sometimes a sideways step, in the search for a means to achieve high rates and recovery within the bounds of economic constraints.Cold production using vertical wells and horizontal wells.Stimulation by wellbore heating.Cyclic steaming using conventional wells.Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).Steam and Gas Push (SAGP).Cyclic Steaming with horizontal wells.Vapour Extraction (Vapex). Processes resulting in the displacement of oil by gas to a lower horizontal well show the most promise. The viscosity in the region around the horizontal well should be reduced to allow economic rates without gas coning. In SAGD, injected steam heats the oil and fills the reservoir as it drains, and rates of 79 – 159 m3/d (500 – 1,000 B/d) can be achieved with bitumen recoveries greater than 50%. Heat savings can be achieved by building a substantial gas concentration within the depleted region (SAGP). In Vapex, viscosity reduction is obtained by dilution with a olatile solvent; this is a promising approach for lower viscosity heavy oils. Another promising approach is cyclic steaming with horizontal wells, combined with gas addition to the steam to maintain drive. Introduction As conventional oil reserves become depleted, interest continues to grow in the improved recovery and utilization of Canadian tar sands and heavy oil. The resources are enormous in magnitude, and there have been great strides in technology. One approach, the mining and upgrading of shallow Athabasca deposits has, with the success of the Suncor and Syncrude projects, already become a major source of Canadian oil. Major expansions to both of these projects, as well as other new tar sand mining projects are underway. While mining overcomes the problem of moving the oil to the surface and of obtaining high recoveries, it requires the handling and disposal of vast amounts of solids and sludge, and it is only economic for the shallowest of deposits. The major part of the Canadian oil sand resource is too deeply buried for mining to be practical. This paper is concerned with the recovery of bitumen and heavy oils by in situ methods, i.e., by means of wells drilled from the 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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