Horizontal Well Accuracy and its Effect on Infill Drilling in the Winter Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Winter pool in Saskatchewan has been developed using horizontal wells 800 to 1400 meters long at 75 meter nominal spacing. The horizontal sections are located near the top of the reservoir to maximize the area swept by the coning behavior of the bottom water. Section 31-42-25 W3M is now being infill drilled to 37.5 meter spacing in an attempt to increase reservoir drainage. The heels of the infill wells are being placed between the toes of the original wells to avoid expected greater oil depletion and water coning at the heels of the original wells. Several initial infill wells encountered lost circulation and/or magnetic interference from offsetting original wells, indicating the locations of the original wells obtained from MWD data were not accurate. For subsequent infill wells gyros were run in the original offsetting wells to verify trajectories. The gyro-based well locations disagreed with the MWD-based well locations. This prompted an examination of existing drilling, Gyro, MWD, and magnetic North positioning data and technology. This paper will discuss the theoretical and practical aspects of (1) establishing the locations of existing horizontal wells, and (2) placing infill horizontal wells in optimum locations between the existing wells in the Winter pool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".