MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2009877185 · doi:10.2118/2003-120

Pressure Transient Analysis in SAGD

2003· article· en· W2009877185 sur OpenAlexaffabout
J. Rabb, C. Palmgren

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Établissements canadiensPetro-Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInjectorPetroleum engineeringDrillingSteam injectionGeologyPressure dropSteam-assisted gravity drainageCoalescence (physics)Permeability (electromagnetism)ThermalOil sandsMechanicsEngineeringMaterials scienceChemistryMechanical engineeringMeteorology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an in-situ thermal recovery technique used at Petro-Canada's MacKay River Project. SAGD utilizes pairs of horizontal wells placed near the bottom of the reservoir. Steam is injected into the upper well to reduce the viscosity of the bitumen. The bottom producing well collects the produced fluids. The objective of this study is to develop an analytical well test method that would allow a measure of steam chamber volume and potentially the timing and location of steam chamber coalescence. This well test method would also prove useful in determining an analytical solution for near well bore characteristics and reservoir boundaries. A pseudo-compositional thermal simulator was used to generate reservoir pressure responses by shutting off an injector at different periods of time and monitoring the pressure falloff while continuing with production. Confined, unconfined and coalesced 2-dimensional sinksource well pair models, based upon the geology and drilling pattern at Petro-Canada's MacKay River Project, were used in the study. The effect of the magnitude of the vertical permeability and the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio on the shut-in pressure response was also studied so that this method could be applied to other reservoirs of differing geology. Pressure response type curves were generated and the relationships between pressure drop at the injector, shut in time, and steam chamber volume were determined. We show that the pressure response type curves are unique for different types of SAGD wells and levels of steam chamber development. This information will aid in determining the timing of operational conversions as well as determining recovery factors and possibly locations of reservoir boundaries as well as steam chamber coalescence. Introduction Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an in-situ thermal recovery technique that uses pairs of horizontal wells to produce bitumen. Steam is injected from the upper well into the formation to reduce the viscosity of bitumen. Gravity is the primary driving force as the steam rises and forms a steam chamber that gradually sweeps through the reservoir. The steam that is injected into the upper well creates a steam chamber that enables the heavier condensate and heated bitumen to flow downwards into the bottom producing well. (1) In a commercial SAGD project it can be expected that as the steam chambers mature and sweep through the reservoir, the well pairs will begin to interact with each other and the steam chambers will coalesce. Coalescence is defined as the point at which separate adjacent steam chambers merge to form one large steam chamber. Coalescence is used for timing operational conversions to secondary recovery schemes such as solvent injection. As a result of the planning that is required for the operational conversion, a method of measuring the volume of the steam chamber would prove useful in estimating the timing of coalescence and the subsequent operational conversions. Considering there are 25 well pairs at MacKay River, it is also necessary to know which well pairs have coalesced so as to know the well pairs in which to institute operational conversions.

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 candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,416
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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)0,0020,000

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 GPT0,206
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · 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.

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

Citations5
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceMême sujetHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisTravaux en français237 207