MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074168681 · doi:10.2118/137773-pa

Numerical History Match of the Burnt Lake SAGD Process

2010· article· en· W2074168681 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Yoshiaki Ito, Joyce Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainagePetroleum engineeringSteam injectionOil productionAsphaltOil sandsProduction rateEnvironmental scienceSteam pressureOil in placeLeaseWaste managementGeologyPulp and paper industryBoiler (water heating)PetroleumEngineeringArchaeologyGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Burnt Lake Oil Sand Lease is located approximately 300 km northeast of Edmonton. The lease is estimated to contain 330x106 m3 of bitumen in place in the Clearwater oil sands formation. Cold production was tested in the lease to recover 11°API - 12°API crude bitumen between 1990 - 1993. Three pairs of SAGD operations began in April 1997 after 3 months of circulation. Many interesting characteristics were identified in the injection and production history. During the first year of operation, pressure and oil production rates decreased when steam injection rates were reduced. After the second year of operation, oil production rates responded inversely to steam injection rates. Oil rates were reduced when steam rates were increased, and oil rates increased when steam rates were reduced. Declines in oil rates were relatively slow over the entire operation period. When the steam injection was stopped for approximately 5 months after 5 years of operation, the operation pressure and oil production rates were gradually reduced during this period. Many other unexpected trends were also observed. All these features were consistently seen in all three pairs. This paper presents these behaviours in detail. A simulation study of 9 years of performance of Pair 1 was conducted to understand these characteristics. The history match demonstrated that oil production was achieved by two different mechanisms: one was expansion of the steam chamber and the other was drainage of oil from the layer above the steam chamber. Many unexpected performances were the result of the combination of these two recovery mechanisms.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.181
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207