MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753776126 · doi:10.2118/0917-0059-jpt

Satellite Monitoring of Cyclic-Steam Stimulation Without Corner Reflectors

2017· article· en· W2753776126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarSteam injectionSatelliteElevation (ballistics)Synthetic aperture radarRemote sensingGeologyRadarInterferometryGeodesyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPetroleum engineeringTelecommunicationsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 184971, “Satellite Monitoring of Cyclic-Steam Stimulation Without Corner Reflectors,” by Michael D. Henschel and Jonathan Dudley, MDA, and Peter Chung, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, prepared for the 2017 SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, Calgary, 15–16 February. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Accurate monitoring of the ground deformation of a field under cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) can be used to calibrate predictive models, show the effectiveness of steam injection, and demonstrate the effect of the recovery operation on the surface elevation. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) uses radar returns from the ground to calculate highly precise estimates of the ground change. The authors discuss a new way of extracting deformation information from radar imagery, contributing to improved accuracy of InSAR surface-elevation monitoring. Introduction The challenge in the Canadian oil sands is to achieve robust measurements with limited infrastructure. Essentially, the problem is to develop robust measurements of the ground movement without reliance on buildings, pipelines, or even installed targets [such as corner reflectors (CRs)]. The case study described here shows exceptional results for monitoring of regions without traditional point targets. The operations and mechanism of thermal recovery of steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and CSS differ. SAGD is a continuous process of balanced injection and production, while CSS is a cyclic process of injection, soaking, and depletion. The methodology provided depends on an understanding of the expected ground movement but does not rely on fore-knowledge of the motion itself. The rate of change in ground deformation associated with a CSS operation is key to the extraction of the signal (deformation) over the time required for this monitoring. The relatively short time scales and the high magnitude of the changes experienced in CSS are well-suited to the nontraditional methods described here. The methods are validated by measurements of surface elevation by use of real-time kinematic (RTK) global-positioning-system (GPS) surveys acquired in the Primrose field coincident to the InSAR observations. The net-over-injection (NOI) metric provided by Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) is also used to demonstrate the causal relationship between injection and production volumes and the observed ground heave and subsidence, respectively.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207