MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2488039741 · doi:10.2118/2009-014

Evaluation of Steam Circulation Strategies for SAGD Start-Up

2009· article· en· W2488039741 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Natural Resources Limited
Mots-clésPetroleum engineeringCirculation (fluid dynamics)Steam injectionEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The impact of steam quality, circulation rate and pressure difference between the well pair during SAGD initialization using steam circulation was explored through the use of numerical simulations employing a discretized wellbore model. These operating parameters appear to affect uniformity of reservoir heating, occurrence of steam breakthrough and time required to establish communication between the well pair. The simulation results indicate that, for the given tubing and liner sizes and reservoir properties, relatively lower circulation rates at high steam quality are more favourable for faster initialization and development of uniform temperature between the horizontal well pair. At lower steam qualities, however, higher circulation rates appear more favourable. The use of high steam quality in combination with high circulation rates leads to slower rates of initialization, less uniform heating along the length of the wells, and possibility of premature steam breakthrough at the heel. It was also found that having a higher steam quality in the lower well than in the upper well could lead to faster initialization and more uniform heating between the well pair. A small pressure difference, offsetting the natural hydraulic pressure (50kPa), appears to be more favourable for faster and more uniform initialization. Introduction Start-up or initialization of a well pair can be a challenging part of SAGD operation but is one of the least studied. Start-up procedures may have a significant impact on the subsequent production history and, in the extreme, can result in damage and/or abandonment of the well pair. Producers use a variety of strategies that balance the need for rapid start-up to production against maximizing the chances of better long term SAGD performance. These start-up strategies are normally reservoir specific and not available through public database so detailed analysis of these strategies is not the objective of the current work. Rather, we seek to determine, for the commonly used steam circulation strategies, how a range of operating parameters might affect the generic start-up behaviour of SAGD well pairs. Start-up of a gravity drainage process in a very viscous reservoir using a pair of parallel horizontal wells requires the establishment of oil mobility between the well pair. In the case of SAGD, this requires that the intervening fluid between the well pair be heated to a temperature sufficiently high to cause the oil to flow from upper well (injector) to a lower well (producer). This is normally achieved by initially circulating steam in each well. The horizontal portion of each well can consist of tubing and liner, which provides two possible channels for fluid flow. In the simplest case, hot fluid can be injected into a steel tubing at the heel, flow from the heel to toe through the tubing, and then out through the annular space between tubing and liner from the toe towards the heel. With such a flow arrangement combined with heat transfer, from fluid in the tubing to fluid in the annulus and from annulus to formation, the thermodynamics combined with hydrodynamics can be fairly complex to describe.

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.

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 enseignants0,149
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,492

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
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 Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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