Statistical Review of the Performance of Some Horizontal wells Drilled in IOR/EOR Projects and Gas Pools in the WCSB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract More than 10 000 horizontal wells have been drilled in the Westem Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) between 1987 and the present. About 5 000 of these wells have been drilled in conventional oil pools on primary production, and about 1000 wells have been drilled in heavy oil bitumen reservoirs. In addition about 3000 wells have been drilled in enhanced oil recovery (EOR} projects (mainly waterfloods, and miscible/immiscible gas/hydrocarbon injection solvent floods), and about 1000 horizontal wells have been drilled in natural gas reservoirs. As expected in each group the initial production rate and cumulative production (5 years) show some variation from the mean/average rates.. In this review we will focus our attention on the performance of horizontal wells drilled in EOR projects and natural gas pools. We have grouped these wells into conventional heavy oil sandstone waterflood projects; Light-medium oil sandstone waterflood projects; carbonate waterflood projects; carbonate "horizontal miscible" solvent floods projects; carbonate "vertical miscible" solvent floods projects; sandstone gas horizontal wells projects; and carbonate gas horizontal wells project. Horizontal wells drilled in conventional oil pools on primary production and heavy oil/bitumen in-situ projects are not included in this review. We have identified representative samples for each group. The median, mean/average, 75th percentile and 25th percentile have been determined for the initial rates, and 5-year cumulative (5-year cum.) production. Production Performance Rate-Time Plots for each group are shown. We have also provided a short discussion of the performance of each group. In our discussion we have tried to identify wells/pools and formations which are chiefly responsible for the 75th and 25th percentile performance, and have discussed some of the reservoir rock and fluid characteristics which may be responsible for the variation in performance. Brief comments are also made on some drilling or operational techniques employed which may have affected the performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".