MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077786884 · doi:10.2118/2007-004

High-Pressure Air Injection and Waterflood Performance Comparison of Two Adjacent Units in Buffalo Field

2007· article· en· W2077786884 on OpenAlexaff
Vinod Kumar, D. Gutiérrez, R.G. Moore, S. A. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringField (mathematics)GeologyEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1987, 8,000 acres of the Buffalo field were divided into two units to initiate improved oil recovery operations with two different methods: high-pressure air injection (HPAI) and waterflooding. After collecting 19 years of production history, a technical and economic comparison has been made between the two projects. The technical performance was evaluated in terms of incremental oil recovery, ultimate recovery and incremental recovery per volumes of fluid injected. The economic comparison was performed in terms of net present value, incremental rate of return and payout time. A sensitivity analysis on some of the key drivers of the project economics was also performed. Throughout the years, the West Buffalo Red River Unit(WBRRU) under HPAI has technically outperformed its "twin" West Buffalo "B" Red River Unit (WBBRRU) under waterflooding. Nevertheless, the waterflood project has shown greater economic benefit, which results primarily from the low oil prices (less than $20/bbl) experienced during most of their operating lives. This case study shows that for a HPAI project to be successful not only technically but also economically, a sufficiently high oil price (greater than $25/bbl) is needed due mainly to the high operating costs and capital investment. Introduction The Buffalo Field is located in the northwest corner of the state of South Dakota (USA), on the southwestern flank of the Williston Basin. It was discovered in 1954 and produces from the Red River reservoirs. During the early 1960's it was recognized from the fast reservoir depletion that primary recovery efficiency in the field would be very low and that water injectivity tests were discouraging for future waterflood operations. During the late 1970's Koch Exploration Company (Koch) conducted an air injectivity test and developed a pilot under air injection. Because the pilot results were promising, the Buffalo Red River Unit (BRRU) was formed. Based upon the success of the BRRU High-Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) project, another HPAI project was started in early 1980's in the southern part of the field and called the South Buffalo Red River Unit (SBRRU). The Buffalo Field is located in Harding County in the northwest corner of the state of South Dakota (USA), on the southwestern flank of the Williston Basin. It produces from the Ordovician Red River reservoirs. As of December 31, 2006 the Buffalo Field is composed by six units (plus a non-unitized area) after the creation of the North and Central Red River Units (NBRRU and CBRRU) in 2003 and 2004 respectively. The West Buffalo area (WBRRU and WBBRRU) is located to the west of the existing Buffalo and South Buffalo Red River Units. The primary producing horizon in these two units is the Red River "B" zone found at an average depth of 8,400 ft. The trapping mechanism appears to be predominantly stratigraphic with porous dolomite encased in limestone and anhydrite.Structural relief of the porous zones has served to enhance production. The two West Buffalo Red River Unit areas were discovered at different times, the area of the West Buffalo "B" Red River Unit is much younger than its "twin" West Buffalo Red River Unit.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207