MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587441664 · doi:10.2118/185967-ms

SAGD Sand Control: Large Scale Testing Results

2017· article· en· W2587441664 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsSizingPetroleum engineeringScalingGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyAsphaltGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) producer wells in the McMurray formation require sand control technologies that will limit sand production while minimizing production constraints caused by high pressure drops and liner plugging. Previous publications around sand control selection and sizing for SAGD producers have provided varied and often conflicting design recommendations based on the expected formation sand particle size distribution. Small scale lab testing of sand control medium is often challenged with inconsistent results and uncertainty around the appropriate normalization for test comparison and scaling up to real-world applications. Devon Canada designed and constructed an in-house large scale liner testing apparatus to evaluate sand control technologies and determine the optimal aperture or filter size for sand types expected in the McMurray formation of the future Pike 1 SAGD project. The large scale liner testing results are presented in this paper along with the final recommendation for sand control on Pike SAGD producer wells. A brief review of the Pike McMurray sand typing and small scale liner testing is also presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207