MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2057427354 · doi:10.2118/00-11-02

Modelling the Reservoir Mechanisms for Gas Cap Blowdown of the Virginia Hills Belloy Reservoir

2000· article· en· W2057427354 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Frank Kuppe, S. Chugh, J.D. Kyles

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensShell (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of AlbertaSuncor Energy Incorporated
Mots-clésBoiler blowdownPetroleum engineeringSaturation (graph theory)Natural gasGeologyReservoir simulationNatural gas fieldPermeability (electromagnetism)Oil fieldResidual oilCompletion (oil and gas wells)Hydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringGeomorphologyChemistryWaste managementInlet

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Concurrent gas and oil production from the Virginia Hills Belloy Shunda Unit #1 was considered. A full field simulation study was used to evaluate the impact of initiating early blowdown of the gas cap. An excellent match of the production, pressures, and two-phase interface movements was achieved. The model predicts that early blowdown and delayed blowdown cases achieve comparable ultimate oil and gas recoveries. The role of the well established water fence between the gas cap and oil leg, unique reservoir characteristics and reservoir management strategy, which contribute to this result, are discussed. Research and analytical work was a prerequisite to the simulation study to establish many of the model input parameters. Conformance plots are discussed and used to determine:how efficient reservoir depletion has been to date anda residual oil saturation. Results of the simulation study also confirm the input relative permeability curves and trapped gas saturation obtained from referenced studies. Introduction The Virginia Hills Belloy field is located approximately 165 km northwest of Edmonton, Alberta in Townships 63 and 64, Range 13 and 14, W5M (see Figure 1). The field was discovered in 1970 during the development of the nearby Virginia Hills field and was initially developed as a gas pool. Up dip movement of the oil column towards the gas cap led to the discovery of the oil leg in 1976. By 1978, the oil column was delineated with 21 oil wells. The gas cap was shut-in by 1980 after having produced approximately 800 E6m3. A waterflood was implemented as an up dip line drive while also creating a water fence between the gas cap and oil reserves in 1981 (Figure 1). Down dip water injection began in 1991. Since 1994, a total of seven horizontal (five successful, two wet) wells have been drilled to recover bypassed oil. One of the five successful horizontal wells was drilled on the basis of this simulation study. With the field maturing, a simulation study was commissioned to determine the ultimate recovery and whether oil and gas recovery would be impacted by early blowdown of the gas cap. With the existing gas plant approaching turndown and economic limits, decommissioning the plant in 1999 would be followed by capital expenditures to re-inject the sour gas and eventual blowdown of the gas cap. Early blowdown would conserve capital and make efficient use of existing resources. In addition, concurrent production (early blowdown) would result in a reduction of the operating life by 12 years, and thereby also reduce associated expenses. FIGURE 1: Location of producers and injectors in Belloy Field. (Available in full paper) From a regulatory perspective, approval for concurrent production is normally not considered unless the pool is in the final stages of depletion (greater than 90% of ultimate recoverable oil) and the ultimate recovery is not impacted significantly. Depending on the recovery estimate used, current recovery from Belloy is between 80 – 90% of ultimate oil recovery. This study will show that concurrent production of oil and gas from the Belloy pool does not adversely affect hydrocarbon recovery.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,172
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,553

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · 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

Citations4
Publié2000
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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