MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223695682 · doi:10.2118/174466-ms

History Matches and Interpretation of CHOPS Performance for CSI Field Pilot

2015· article· en· W2223695682 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
FundersPetroleum Technology Research CentreAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceOil fieldPetroleumPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringInflowGeologyChemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract CHOPS (Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand) is a primary production recovery method used in the Western Canadian Lloydminster heavy oil region which contains about 3 billion m3 of heavy oil. It increases heavy oil production rates by creating high permeability channels in the reservoir through aggressively producing sand with the oil. As a result of CHOPS, 5 - 15% of the initial oil can be recovered. This paper summarizes CHOPS history matches that used the CMG STARS™ simulator and representative process mechanisms in simulating two Husky CHOPS wells, one well was later used as a Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI) pilot well and the second well was a communicating offset well during CSI. The history matches were pre-processed for the post-CHOPS CSI field pilot. They were part of the $40 million JIVE Program and were in support of a CSIfield development in the Edam area. The history matches predicted the reservoir conditions (e.g. pressure, effective permeability, effective porosity, fluid saturations, and mole fraction profiles) at the end of CHOPS to set up the CSI initial reservoir conditions (i.e. the start of CSI). Oil, water and sand production were well matched for both of the wells during CHOPS. Foamy oil and sand transport mechanisms were represented in the simulations. The simulation results and the CHOPS model described below provided insight into CHOPS depletion mechanisms and post-CHOPS reservoir characteristics. At the end of CHOPS, the CSI well was pressure depleted with low liquid inflow. In the simulations, the wormholes were predicted to extend to about 151 m from the CSI well. Wormholes from the offset well reached a source of water and had continuous water inflow. It was predicted that the offset well wormholes penetrated about 220 m into the reservoir. Conclusions include: The AITF CHOPS model can capture field production mechanisms and reservoir behaviors.Continuing lower rate sand production and wormhole network growth is essential to obtain sustained higher oil production rates during CHOPS.As a result of greater reservoir contact, a thinner pay with longer wormholes can produce more oil than a thicker pay with shorter wormholes.Directly obtaining reservoir properties from the field LAS log data and use of the thin layers in the log file as simulation layers were important in catching fluid flow behaviors and obtaining satisfactory history matches for oil and water production.Good CHOPS history matches and reservoir charactisation are essential for field CSI pilot wells as they quantify the post-CHOPS reservoir conditions, the extension of wormhole networks, and the depletion regions. Consequently, they provide predictive value for developing CSI operation strategies for successful post-CHOPS CSI applications.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.210 · 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