MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135897795 · doi:10.2118/113254-pa

Buffalo Field High-Pressure-Air-Injection Projects: Technical Performance and Operational Challenges

2009· article· en· W2135897795 on OpenAlexaff
D. Gutiérrez, Robert J. Miller, A.R. Taylor, B. P. Thies, V. K. Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecondary air injectionPetroleum engineeringInjection wellCompletion (oil and gas wells)DrillingWater injection (oil production)Oil fieldOil productionEngineeringCrude oilDirectional drillingEnvironmental scienceWaste managementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Buffalo field air-injection units, located in northwest South Dakota, are the oldest high-pressure-air-injection (HPAI) projects currently in operation. Air injection began in January 1979, and as of December 2007, approximately 240 Bscf of air has been injected into the field. A total of 17.2 million bbl of incremental oil has been produced by the HPAI process, which is equivalent to 9.4% of the original oil in place (OOIP). The cumulative air/oil ratio (AOR) after 29 years of air injection is approximately 14 Mscf of air/bbl of incremental oil. This paper summarizes the performance of the projects and the overall experience gained by the operators after nearly 30 years of air injection. It covers almost every aspect of the entire operation since its inception; it discusses general management practices, technical and operational challenges encountered, injection and production facilities, and drilling and well-completion practices. It also includes estimates of incremental oil recovery caused by air injection and discusses how the air use has changed over time To date, the three HPAI projects in the Buffalo field continue to be a commercial success. In the last 3 years, horizontal laterals have been drilled out of more than 40 old vertical wells to enhance production, to take advantage of accumulated reservoir energy, and to improve sweep efficiency. Drilling injection wells out of old vertical wells was not possible because the openhole laterals cross a porosity zone that would have taken away some of the injection into nonproductive reservoir.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207