MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1994820881 · doi:10.2118/2004-167

Impact of Brackish Water use for Steam Generation in Heavy Oil Recovery by CSS and SAGD Processes

2004· article· en· W1994820881 sur OpenAlexaffabout
M.N. Nadella, Gopal Achari

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgarySNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrackish waterPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceProduced waterSteam injectionSteam-assisted gravity drainageWaste managementGeologyEngineeringMaterials scienceOil sands

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Heavy oil is being recovered from bitumen reserves deeper than 100 meters mainly through cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) and steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) processes. Both these processes use high pressure steam to mobilize the heavy oil. The steam to oil ratio used is about 2.5 to 4.0 m3(cold water equivalent)/m3 of heavy oil produced. The steam generation pressures are about 8 to 12 MPag and saturated steam is used for injection. Steam generation at this high pressure requires good quality boiler feed water. Due to competing demands on the use of fresh water, oil producers are looking at using brackish water as a source of makeup water. The use of brackish water along with recycled produced water poses challenges for water treatment design, material selection and waste disposal. In this paper, the quality of brackish water and its impact on materials of construction is reviewed and available technologies for its treatment to obtain boiler feed water are reviewed. An example of the quality and quantity of effluents is included. The final treatment and disposal methods are studied based on current technology and provincial regulation for disposal. The monitoring and control requirements for wastewater disposal have been studied. Introduction The total recoverable crude bitumen resources in Alberta are estimated to be1 50 billion cubic meters. Of these, only 4% of the total crude bitumen is expected to be surface mined2. The remaining subsurface bitumen has to be recovered using in-situ processes such as cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) and steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). In both these processes, makeup water is required to generate sufficient steam as well as to operate the surface facilities treating the oil/water emulsion produced from the CSS and SAGD wells. In Alberta, the fresh water resources for an industry are allocated based on diversion licenses as per the Water Act. Since in-situ bitumen extraction processes compete with other users of fresh water, there is a growing opposition in allowing fresh water diversion for oil production3. When the oil development takes place in the white area of the Province, such as Cold Lake, the developer is required to investigate methods of minimizing fresh water use and consider alternate sources prior to applying for water allocation license and environmental clearances. Brackish water from deeper aquifers is an alternate water resource being considered by the oil producers as makeup water for steam generation. This water can be treated to satisfy the boiler feed water specifications and combined with recycled produced water to meet the water requirements. There is no competition for the use of brackish water with higher than 4000 parts per million total dissolved solids, from other users and a diversion license is not required to use this water. However, the brackish water requires more treatment than fresh water due to its salinity. The brackish water also requires special corrosion resistant materials for construction of the treatment facilities due to high chloride content. Brackish Water Sources and Quality Brackish water, available from deeper aquifers in Alberta, is defined4 as water containing more than 1,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids (TDS).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,449
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,981

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceMême sujetEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesTravaux en français237 207