Meeting the Challenge to Extend Success at the Pikes Peak Steam Project to Areas with Bottom Water
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 This paper provides a field review of the Pikes Peak steam project, showing key performance indicators of cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) and steam drive in non-bottom water. To test development over relatively thin bottom water (less than 5 meters), various steam processes were field trialed. Field pilot results from vertical well CSS, dual horizontal well gravity drainage, and a combination of vertical injectors-horizontal well producer are presented for comparison. Based on field experience and numerical simulation input, CSS has been successfully conducted with economic steam-oil ratios (SOR) in areas with up to 4 meters of bottom water by injecting significantly larger steam slugs in what is termed a drive, block and drain process. In thicker bottom water, the ability to operate at constant pressure to prevent bottom water influx confers an advantage to the horizontal well approach. Followup field scale developments of some bottom water areas are described. Numerical simulation results indicate that pressuring up of a depleted steamflooded zone to be an optimum strategy for maximizing offset flank recovery. This is being implemented in the field by re-injecting produced vent gases.
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) | 0.000 | 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