Reducing Steam Oil Ratio in Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage
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 North America's long-term energy future depends heavily upon the Athabasca oilsands. Only 15% of these deposits are at mineable depths (<90m) and thus 85% of the oilsands (232 billion bbl recoverable reserves) must be recovered using in-situ techniques. Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has become the method of choice for oilsand producers and it is therefore critical to optimize this process. Steam additives can improve recovery from the SAGD process. The additive, hydrocarbon or not, is soluble in bitumen at reservoir conditions and serves to decrease its viscosity, thereby increasing the production rate over a process driven solely by steam. This paper investigates several steam additive pilot projects with a focus on a project at Long Lake. Also, this paper discusses laboratory experiments involving a comparison of the performance of different hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon additives for assisting the SAGD process. Steam additives should be pursued because successful implementation would significantly improve profitability by accelerating production, decreasing water losses and decreasing steam requirements. Additionally this will address environmental concerns by decreasing CO2 emissions associated with steam generation using natural gas. If successful, these steam additives will also increase reserves both per well pair and on a total oilsands basis.
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