Impact of Well Configuration on Performance of Steam-Based Gravity Drainage Processes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The volume of heavy oil and bitumen in the oil sands deposits in Western Canada is similar to that of conventional crude oil in the Middle East. This resource is immense but is difficult and energy intensive to extract because the viscosity of the oil is high, typically over 100,000 to 1,000,000+ cP at original reservoir conditions. Current commercial thermal recovery processes used are Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS). These methods are both energy intensive, emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide to atmosphere, and use large volumes of water to recover the oil. In this work, the focus is on steam-based gravity drainage processes. It has been demonstrated that operating strategy can be altered to improve SAGD performance but it is not clear how well configuration can be changed to improve recovery, energy intensity, thermal efficiency, water use, and flue gas emissions. This paper examines the impact of position and geometry of steam injectors on the performance of steam-based gravity drainage processes in a heterogeneous reservoir. Different injection well configurations including single horizontal (typical SAGD), offset SAGD, and vertical/horizontal well combinations have been evaluated by using a detailed, three-dimensional, geostatistically-populated, large-scale thermal reservoir simulation model derived from core data examinations of the Dover pilot site. The research reveals how injection well configuration impacts energy delivery to the reservoir, thermal efficiency, and how it changes the evolution of the steam conformance zone and oil flow dynamics in the reservoir. The results suggest that several vertical injectors have the potential to deliver steam more efficiently than a single horizontal injector. Introduction In the province of Alberta, Canada, the volume of oil sands as reported by Energy Resources and Conservation Board (ERCB) is about 2.7 billion cubic meters1. Nevertheless, despite their abundance, these oil sands are very viscous and essentially immobile at reservoir conditions. Currently, most in situ recovery processes used to recover oil sands are steambased. One commercial process is the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) method which has been used to mobilize and improve the recovery of oil sands by injecting steam into a horizontal well placed above a horizontal producer2,3,4. There are several SAGD projects currently in operation and being developed in the Athabasca area1. However, variability in performance is large; there are many SAGD wellpairs that have performed with low production rates and thermal efficiency1. This is usually a result of reservoir geology and operating strategy. It is required that SAGD or SAGD-variants are robust, that is, they are geotolerant, so that they can be tuned to operate with reasonable thermal efficiency in geologically-diverse oil sands reservoirs. There are a number of design issues that need to be understood to develop and improve the performance of SAGD. Some examples are well configurations and operating conditions such as steamtrap control and injection pressure. Well configurations and its impact on steam-based gravity drainage processes is the main topic of this paper.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».