Instow: A Full-Field, Multipatterned Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood—Analyses and Comparison of Phases 1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary An alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) project in the Instow field, Upper Shaunavon Formation in Saskatchewan, Canada, was planned in three phases. The first two multiwell pattern phases are nearing completion. Beginning in 2007, an ASP solution was injected into Phase 1. Phase 1 polymer drive injection began in 2011 after injection of 37% pore volume (PV) ASP solution. Coincident with the polymer drive injection into Phase 1, Phase 2 ASP solution injection began. Phase 2 polymer drive began in 2016 after injection of 55% PV ASP solution. Polymer solution injection for the polymer drives of both phases continues in both phases with Phase 1 and Phase 2 injected volumes being 55 and 42% PV as of August 2019, respectively. Phase 1 and Phase 2 oil cut response to ASP injection showed an increase of approximately four times from 3.2% to a peak of 13.0% for Phase 1 and Phase 2 oil cut increased from 1.8% to a peak of 14.8%, approximately eightfold. Oil rates increased from approximately 3200 m3/m (20 127 bbl/m) at the end of water injection to a peak of 8300 m3/m (52 220 bbl/m) in Phase 1 and from 1230 m3/m (7 736 bbl/m) to 6332 m3/m (39 827 bbl/m) in Phase 2. Phase 1 pattern analysis indicates that the PV of ASP solution injected varied from 13% to 54% PV of ASP. Oil recoveries after the start of ASP solution injection in the different patterns ranged from 2.3% original oil in place (OOIP) up to 21.3% OOIP with lower oil recoveries generally correlating with lower volumes of ASP solution injected. Wells in common to the two phases of the project show increased oil cut and oil rate responses to chemical injection from both Phases 1 and 2. Total oil recovery as of August 2019 is 60% OOIP for Phase 1 and 62% OOIP for Phase 2. Phase 1 economic analysis indicated chemical and operation cost was approximately CAD 26/bbl, resulting in the decision to move forward with Phase 2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".