MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2003342886 · doi:10.2118/0406-0098-jpt

New Developments in Steamflood Modeling

2006· article· en· W2003342886 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Bybee

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOil in placeSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringOil sandsPetroleumSteam-assisted gravity drainageReservoir engineeringReservoir simulationGeologyOil fieldEnhanced oil recoveryEnvironmental scienceAsphaltArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 97719, "New Developments in Steamflood Modeling," by M. Kumar, SPE, C. Satik, SPE, and V. Hoang, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Co., prepared for the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, 1–3 November. Using results from fine-scale, multipattern, geostatistical models, the full-length paper reviews key issues related to steamflood modeling. Pattern-element and single-sand models used in many previous studies are not sufficient to explain observed field performance, and larger heterogeneous models give more-realistic recovery predictions. Current computing improvements make larger-scale steamflood modeling viable compared with what was possible earlier, and a realistic steamflood performance is attained when necessary details are included in the model. Introduction Steam injection is the most widely used enhanced-oil-recovery method. Current oil production by steam injection is estimated to be more than 1.1 million BOPD. Most conventional heavy-oil steamflooding projects in California, Canada, Indonesia, and Venezuela employ vertical wells, although use of horizontal producers is growing. On the other hand, extra-heavy oils may require both horizontal injectors and producers, such as in steam-assisted gravity drainage. Oil recovery can exceed 20% of the original oil in place (OOIP) for cyclic steaming and more than 50% OOIP by continuous steam injection. Geologic Models The geologic model used in this study is from portions of the Kern River field, one of the largest oil fields in the U.S. on the basis of OOIP and reserves. The Kern River field is a shallow heavy-oil field 5 miles northeast of Bakersfield, California. The field has been on steam injection since the mid-1960s. Production is from from several distinct sand zones with high permeabilities and porosities deposited in a braided river environment. The sandstones are typically medium- to very coarse-grained, poorly to very poorly sorted, and have little to no detrital clay. The high-quality reservoir sandstones are interbedded with poor-quality sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones, that may be barriers to fluid flow. The individual sand bodies, typically 50 to 100 ft thick, are separated by competent and correlatable shale layers and are steamflooded one at a time. However, some of the shales may not be continuous over the entire project area. In addition, shale continuity varies both areally and vertically. As a result, significant fluid migration can occur between sands, making reservoir management and analysis more challenging. The Kern River field properties of low reservoir pressure, high permeability, and high oil saturations are all favorable for steamflooding. Flow Simulation Model Input Parameters. An average sand porosity of 32% was used in the study. Average permeability was approximately 2,500 md. Vertical permeability was considered to be one-half the horizontal permeability. Initial reservoir temperature and pressure were 90°F and 260 psia, respectively. Initial oil saturation was approximately 50%, and initial gas saturation was 0% in the oil zone. Crude gravity was 14°API and its molecular weight was 400. Dead-oil viscosities range from 4,749 cp at 90°F to 3.6 cp at 400°F. Steam quality at the sandface was 70%. Measured relative permeability values were used. Endpoint saturations and relative permeabilities were considered to be independent of temperature. Three-phase oil relative permeabilities were calculated by use of linear interpolation.

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: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,255
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,383

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
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 Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,231
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · 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'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
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

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207