MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076758978 · doi:10.2118/00-04-03

Mobil's SAGD Experience at Celtic, Saskatchewan

2000· article· en· W2076758978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Saltuklaroglu, Gary Wright, Peter Conrad, J.R. McIntyre, G.J. Manchester

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringAPI gravitySteam-assisted gravity drainageSteam injectionCeltic languagesOil fieldOil viscosityCompletion (oil and gas wells)WellborePetroleumDrillingGeologyDrainageEngineeringOil sandsCrude oilViscosityMechanical engineeringGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Following the 1996 success of two Single Well-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SW-SAGD), wells in the Celtic Field, Saskatchewan, Mobil Oil Canada piloted a Dual Well-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (DW-SAGD), well pair in 1997. The well pair was located in the Sparky-General Petroleum, "channel" sands with a net pay thickness of about 20m and a dead oil viscosity of about 15,000 cP. The objective of the pilot was to obtain operational data for the design and drilling of horizontal wells, and the production performance of horizontal SAGD producers. The well pair has now been operating trouble free for over a year. A plateau oil rate of about 100 m3/d has been sustained during this period, at an extremely efficient Steam/Oil Ratio (SOR) of just under 2.0. This paper briefly reviews the geology and the reservoir in which the wells are located, the specifics of well design and construction, surface facilities, start-up procedure, and the performance of the wells. Introduction In November of 1996, Mobil Oil Canada (Mobil) submitted an application to Saskatchewan Energy and Mines (SEM) for an extension of the existing enhanced oil recovery project in Mobil's Celtic Field(1) (Figure 1). The application proposed to construct and operate two Dual Well-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (DW-SAGD) wells in the Celtic Sparky-General Petroleum (G.P.) sand pool. Approval was granted by the SEM on December 2, 1996. One DW-SAGD well pair was constructed to penetrate the optimum reservoir at a relatively horizontal position. Figure 2 shows the nature of the reservoir in the "channel" sands from log curves. The well pair is located in the southwest corner of section 16-52-23 W3M. Figure 3 shows a plan view of the surface locations and subsurface positions of both wells in relation to the SWSAGD wells (also drilled from the S.E. of section 17), and the thickest porous sand. The producing well was drilled over the period of December 16, 1996, to January 7, 1997, from 3A1-17-52-23 W3M with the bottom hole lying in 4B3-16-52-23 W3M. The steam injection well was drilled over January 8, 1997, to February 3, 1997, from 7A1-17-52-23 W3M with its bottom hole location in 8B3-16-52-23 W3M. The injection well uses the existing surface facilities that are in place for SW-SAGD pilot wells. The objective of the DW-SAGD pilot was to test the applicability and potential of DW-SAGD technology in Mobil's Celtic Sparky-G.P. "channel" sands. The pilot was implemented to FIGURE 1: Celtic field location: Upper Mannville Isopach (Available in full paper) obtain operational performance data for both the design and drilling of horizontal wells, and for sand containment and control of horizontal SAGD producers. Performance data will be critical for the design and operation of future DW-SAGD projects. Geology The Sparky and G. P. (General Petroleum) clastics of the Celtic Field represent a series of fluvial, estuarine, deltaic and marine environments. At Celtic, channels cut through the regional sands in a north-northeast direction. The widespread Rex Coal is always below the scoured surface of the valley and it forms the base of the described sequence.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.182
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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