MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241773480 · doi:10.2118/196897-ms

Geomechanical Considerations when Planning SAGD Wells, a Case Study from Cuba

2019· article· en· W4241773480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kamilla Chettykbayeva, Margarita Ibragimova, А.В. Осипов, Yuriy Petrakov, Alexey V. Sobolev, Olga Tatur

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Tectonic Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBoreholeDrillingTectonicsPetroleum engineeringWell loggingPermeability (electromagnetism)Mining engineeringStratigraphyPetrologyGeotechnical engineeringSeismologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article is the first part of the geomechanical calculations performed in order to optimize the drilling and production operations of the first horizontal wells with target formation M in the Boca de Jaruco field, Republic of Cuba. Here, the analyzed data included regional geology, tectonics and stratigraphy, different types of well logging, the pressure curves while steam operations, core samples and drilling history. The outcome of this part of the work is the assessment of the current stress regime, stress directions and the stability windows for the planned wells. Moreover, the program of additional studies and logs acquisition was elaborated, as at this stage there is not enough data to confidently quantify the stress state, the core samples are not yet tested for rock's deformation and strength properties, and it is hardly possible to find carbonate bitumen deposits under development anywhere in the world which are analogous to the Boca de Jaruco field (with the sole exception of Grosmont in Northern Alberta, Canada). After the wells are drilled (presumably by the end of 2019) and the required information is collected (such as mechanical core testing under elevated temperatures, image logs in the deviated boreholes, etc.), the second part of the work is to be performed, which would include the analysis of the drilling results and the assessment of the cap rock behavior, pore pressure and porosity-permeability changes due to steam injection.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Russian Petroleum Technology ConferenceSame topicGeological and Tectonic Studies in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207