MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070927282 · doi:10.2118/03-01-06

The Evolution of SAGD Technology At East Senlac

2003· article· en· W2070927282 on OpenAlexaffabout
T.B. Boyle, Simon Gittins, Chayan Chakrabarty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageInjectorPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionOil sandsChannel (broadcasting)PetroleumOil productionEnvironmental scienceGeologyHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeographyPaleontologyAsphaltArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since 1996, EnCana Corporation has been advancing twinwell steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology at the Senlac Thermal Project in East Senlac, Saskatchewan, Canada. The latest development phase, Senlac Phase C, consists of two 750 m horizontal well pairs (C1 and C2) drilled in Section 11- 040–26W3. Start-up steaming operations were initiated in June, 2001, with injector-producer communication established six weeks later. Both pairs were ramping up to full oil production rates by late July, 2001. Oil production from the C1 well pair through the end of October, 2002 averaged 275 m3/d, with peak monthly rates exceeding 460 m3/d while operating under solvent- aided SAGD (SAP) conditions. Over the same 16-month period, oil production from the C2 well pair averaged 335 m3/d, with peak monthly rates exceeding 420 m3/d under conventional SAGD conditions. Cumulative steam-oil ratios for the C1 and C2 well pairs are 2.7 m3/m3 and 2.3 m3/m3, respectively. Project Description The Senlac Thermal Project, located 100 kilometres south-east of Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada, uses steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology(1) to recover 12 ° API heavy oil from the Dina/Cummings formation(2), a relatively thin unconsolidated channel sand buried 750 m deep. The channel is made up of highly- permeable oil-saturated sands, with some bottom water present in formation lows. A summary of reservoir properties is given in Table 1. The Senlac facility is a highly-integrated steam generating and oil treating battery. The steam plant is equipped with three 14.65 MW (50 mmBtu/hr) boilers capable of generating 2,000 m3/d of wet steam CWE (cold water equivalent). The wet steam is scrubbed, producing 1,550 m3/d of dry, injection quality steam. The oil treating plant consists of a gravity separator and an atmospheric flash unit for the separation of produced water and oil. The separation units run in series to clean oil production to sales specifications (below 0.5% BS&W). Sales oil is blended with diluent before pipeline transportation. Produced water is disposed into the Duperow formation, a thick carbonate that underlies the Dina/Cummings formation. Early Development Phases The first application of SAGD at Senlac(3–5) began in 1996 with Phase A, an area with 15 m of pay and no bottom water. Phase A initially consisted of three 500 m well pairs drilled with an interwell spacing of 135 m. Vertical spacing between production wells and injection wells averages 5 m. The Phase A wells, denoted A1, A2 and A3, were completed with wire-wrapped screens which produced considerable amounts of sand from the onset. In 1997, a 450 m long infill well pair, A4, was drilled between the A2 and A3 pairs, and completed with 0.457 mm (0.018 in.) keystone-cut slotted liners. This slot design showed improved sand control over the previous screen design. A picture outlining well locations is presented in Figure 1. Phase A has reached the economic limit of production, and all four well pairs are shut in. A summary of Phase A SAGD performance is presented in Table 2.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207