MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915512538 · doi:10.2118/0310-0060-jpt

Technology Focus: Heavy Oil (March 2010)

2010· article· en· W2915512538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cam Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaSubmarine pipelineMiddle EastGeographyShoreGeologyOceanographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus What does the term “heavy oil” mean to you, the broad JPT readership? There are of course the various formal definitions that are tied mainly to API-gravity values (i.e., commonly 22°API), while others reflect both oil density and viscosity (preferentially referring to in-situ conditions). In general, however, recent literature suggests that heavy oil means quite different things to different people throughout this industry because it is used to cover a wide spectrum of reservoir conditions and field developments. Only a decade or so ago, papers written about heavy oil typically referred to developments in Canada, China, USA (California), or Venezuela. Now, however, papers describing heavy-oil projects cover a much broader range, both geographically and in terms of the reservoir conditions involved, with a key distinction between onshore and offshore developments. Now, various types of onshore heavy-oil developments are under way in many countries and regions including the Middle East (Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia), Russia, Africa (Chad, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Libya), USA (Alaska), India, and Europe. Over the past few years, interest has grown rapidly in developing heavy-oil deposits off-shore Brazil, Mexico, Africa, China, Italy, Trinidad, Cuba, and elsewhere. These offshore fields include both carbonate and sandstone reservoirs with in-situ oil viscosities typically less than 400 cp. While such viscosity values are quite low relative to traditional onshore heavy-oil developments, they certainly can present significant technical challenges in an offshore environment. The diversity among these recent heavy-oil developments is significant in terms of the recovery strategies being pursued and the technical challenges that must be overcome. These challenges include choice of recovery method, reservoir characterization and performance, complex-well-design and well-integrity considerations, production and artificial-lift difficulties, as well as fluid-processing difficulties. The papers included in this feature were selected to showcase the wide range of heavy-oil developments under way throughout the world and the novel strategies and technology pursuits that go along with them. Heavy Oil additional reading available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org PETSOC 2009-067 • “Evaluation of Recovery Technologies for the Grosmont Carbonate Reservoirs” by Q. Jiang, SPE, Osum Oil Sands Corporation, et al. SPE 113625 • “The Zatchi B Heavy-Oil-Reservoir Development: The Unique Challenges of the TAML6 Multilateral Well ZAM-408ML” by L. Tealdi, SPE, Eni Congo, et al. SPE 115240 • “Key Technologies of Polymer Flooding in Offshore Oil Field of Bohai Bay” by W. Zhou, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, et al. SPE 121381 • “When Water Means Oil: Block 16 Case History” by C. Correa Feria, Repsol, et al.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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