MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066949958 · doi:10.2118/2003-152

Constraints Mapping at a SAGD Facility in the Oil Sands Region

2003· article· en· W2066949958 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Fawcett, I. Gilchrist, M. Burt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsOptiwave Systems (Canada)Golder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsPetroleum engineeringGeologyMining engineeringAsphaltGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OPTI Canada Inc./Nexen Canada Ltd. (OPTI/Nexen) developed a constraints map for their proposed Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) project near Anzac, Alberta. Constraints mapping is a graphical representation of the suitability of a land area for construction purposes. The objective of a constraints mapis to provide information that will allow reduction of a project's footprint in areas of higher constraint to trigger elevated levels of site mitigation and avoid "no-go" areas. OPTI/Nexen used the constraints map as a key planning tool during the conceptual and detailed designphase for their project to balance the placement of surface facilities with environmental and cultural land use sensitivities. A constraints map is a dynamic tool that can be used over the lifetime of a project, from initial screening at the beginning to detailed facility siting for future phase updates. Constraints maps take into consideration regulatory requirements; raw data such as disturbances, wetlands, field survey data, traditional use, historical sites, soils and air photos as well as derived data such as wildlife Habitat Suitability Index modelling results. They may also include subsurface environmental, surficial and subsurface engineering, and temporal constraints. Fundamentally, constraints mapping utilizes the same information as the Environmental Assessment process, however it processes the information in a slightly different manner. Introduction In December 2001, OPTI Canada Inc. and Nexen Canada Ltd. (OPTI/Nexen) retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to develop an environmental constraints map for their Long Lake Project lease area near Anzac, Alberta (Figure 1). What is a Constraints Map? A constraints map shows areas of high to low environmental and cultural importance based on sensitive features in the area. Sensitive features may include the habitat that animals and fish use for food or shelter, areas where rare plants are found, and protected places such as parks, traditional land use sites and cabins. "Constraint" means to restrict. An area of high environmental importance will be highlighted on the map as an area of high constraint, meaning that a disturbance to the land in this area could have a considerable effect on the sensitive features. Areas of moderate to low environmental importance will be highlighted on the map as having moderate to low constraint, meaning that disturbance to the land in this area could have less effect on the sensitive features. The constraints map also takes into account the combination of overlapping areas of importance. For example, if two or more sensitive features were found in the same area, such as a cabin and a berry-picking area, this location would have a higher environmental constraint than a location with just one sensitive feature. The constraints map is produced by a Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS is a type of computer software that is designed to develop, manage, analyze and display spatial data (where things are) and attribute data (what things are) in a digital format. Why is a Constraints Map Important to OPTI/Nexen?

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207