MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reservoir Characteristics of Devonian Cherts and Their Control on Oil Recovery: Dollarhide Field, West Texas

2001· article· en· W2109071395 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Saller, Brian Ball, Steve Robertson, B. J. O. L. McPherson, Clay Wene, Robert Nims, J. Gogas

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianGeologyOil fieldField (mathematics)PaleontologyMining engineeringPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Approximately 70 million bbl of oil have been produced from the chert-dominated Thirtyone Formation at Dollarhide field. The Thirtyone Formation is Devonian in age and contains two reservoir intervals, an upper dolomite and a lower chert, separated by nonporous limestone. The chert reservoir contains approximately 83% of the original oil in place (OOIP) and consists of two different facies-laminated microporous chert and burrowed chert. The laminated microporous chert was apparently deposited as sponge spicule sands (grainstones) in channels and fans on the slope of the Tobosa basin. The burrowed chert facies was apparently deposited as burrowed mixtures of sponge spicules, siliceous mud, and carbonate mud in broad slope environments between fans and channels. Spicules are thought to be derived from disaggregation of siliceous sponges living on the slope. Early marine and/or meteoric diagenesis dissolved many sponge spicules and reprecipitated the silica as microcrystalline chalcedony and quartz, resulting in spicule-moldic porosity and microporosity in the originally siliceous strata. The burrowed chert underwent small-scale differential compaction that produced short, discontinuous fractures, 1-10 mm in length and 0.1-0.5 mm in width. Production from the field has been related to amounts and characteristics of the pore systems. The thickness of the porous chert ranges laterally from 0 to 80 ft (0-24 m), and pore volume (φh) ranges from 0 to 20 pore ft (0-6 pore m). The laminated microporous chert is very homogeneous and has high porosity (25-35%) and uniform permeability (5-30 md). Areas dominated by laminated microporous chert had moderate primary recovery (approximately 200,000 bbl of oil per well), excellent waterflood production (1-2.5 million bbl of oil per well), and poor 20-ac (8.1 ha) infill production (<20,000 bbl of oil per well). The burrowed chert has more heterogeneous porosity (5-30%) and permeability (<1-100 md). The dolomite also has heterogeneous pore networks that have porosities of 3-15% and measured permeabilities of less than 1-200 md. Wells having substantial amounts of porous dolomite and/or burrowed chert had moderate to good primary recovery (200,000-300,000 bbl of oil per well), moderate waterflood recovery (300,000-1,100,000 bbl of oil per well), and moderate 20-ac (8.1 ha) infill recovery (50,000-100,000 bbl of oil per well). Oil recovery from the CO2 flood is expected to average approximately 250,000 bbl per well, having slightly higher recovery (300,000 bbl) in areas that have thick laminated microporous chert and/or burrowed chert. Oil recovery from the homogeneous, laminated microporous chert during the CO2 flood is improved by large amounts of residual oil and good sweep efficiency but decreased by the previously efficient sweeping of original mobile oil by the waterflood. The CO2 recovery from the heterogeneous, burrowed chert is improved by significant amounts of unswept mobile oil but decreased by poorer sweep efficiency. As a field, primary recovery is estimated at 13% of OOIP, waterflood at 30% of OOIP, infill at 3.5% of OOIP, and CO2 flood at 11% of OOIP.

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 score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207