SAGD Well Pair Spacing Evaluation with Consideration of Central Processing Facility Constraints
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 When developing properties using the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process, the lateral spacing between horizontal well pair spacing is extensively evaluated during well pad design to optimize resource recovery and economics. However, constraints associated with central processing facilities (CPF) are often not incorporated into the evaluation. With constrained steam supply and fluid processing capacity, the accelerated production that should accompany a reduced well pair spacing scenario may not be realized. In this paper, the economics of developing a SAGD property using 50m, 85m, 100m and 125m well pair spacing are compared within Suncor's MacKay River property. A production development planning tool is used to tie the individual well production profiles to a constrained CPF. While higher oil production rates, a cumulative steam-oil ratio (CSOR) reduction, and slight increase in oil recovery are observed at the well pad level in the 50m well pair spacing scenario, no accelerated oil production is achieved at the CPF level as steam supply and fluid processing capacities are constrained. With larger well pair spacing, the addition of more new pads on an accelerated schedule serves to maximize the CPF capacity utilization and oil production. Hence, the overall oil production at the CPF level is practically the same regardless of well pair spacing. With the areas evaluated in this study, the economics of the 85m, 100m and 125m cases are very close, with the optimum achieved at 100m well pair spacing. The 50m well pair spacing scenario produces the worst economic result as the tighter spacing case requires incremental capital for additional wells to achieve the same resource recovery. Without the accelerated production at the CPF level due to facility constraints or appreciable incremental oil recovery and CSOR reduction overall, there is no increased revenue to offset the increased capital outlay.
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) | 0.001 | 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