Unlocking Bitumen in Thin and/or Lower Pressure Pay Using Cross SAGD (XSAGD)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Cross SAGD (XSAGD) is similar to Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage except that the horizontal injection wells are placed perpendicular to the horizontal production wells. Some completion restriction near the points where the wells cross can be included in the initial well completions or added later to limit short-circuiting of steam between the wells. The concept of XSAGD as applied in a 20-meter thick, homogeneous sand was introduced in the November 2005 International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Expanding beyond that presentation, this paper describes simulations showing that XSAGD offers advantages over SAGD for developing thin and/or low-pressured bitumen sands. By combining both gravity drainage and lateral displacement, XSAGD can accelerate recovery, reduce steam requirements, and improve economic potential compared to SAGD. Simulation results are discussed comparing SAGD and XSAGD performance for pay thickness from 10 to 40 meters, for pressures ranging from 1500 to 4500 kPa, and for homogeneous and heterogeneous pay. Introduction An earlier study[1] describes how XSAGD combines lateral displacement with gravity drainage to accelerate bitumen recovery compared to the SAGD[2] concept in a 20-m homogeneous sand. Some form of completion restriction near where the injection and production wells cross is necessary to limit short-circuiting of the steam and to promote lateral displacement. This restriction could be added after initial communication is established between the wells or it could be built-in from the beginning. The recovery acceleration for XSAGD is partially related to the increased drawdown that can be applied to the producing wells while still maintaining effective steam-trap control. This benefit is due to the lateral offset between the active sections of the completions and the tendency for steam to gravity-override before reaching the unrestricted sections of the producing wells. Overall, XSAGD accelerates bitumen recovery and lateral expansion of the steam chamber and reduces cumulative steam oil ratio (CSOR) compared to SAGD. However, XSAGD recovery factor (RF) generally is slightly lower than SAGD RF. The capital costs for wells, pads, and facilities should be essentially the same for both processes even though the pad arrangement may be somewhat less flexible for XSAGD. One disadvantage of XSAGD is that it is not suitable for implementation as a single well pair, but requires multiple injectors crossing multiple producers. This limits XSAGD to more laterally continuous sands whereas SAGD can be applied in relatively localized pay sections. A possible advantage that XSAGD offers is that the injection well spacing can differ from the producing well spacing with the effect that the ratio of injectors to producers can be varied whereas SAGD generally is restricted to one injection well for each producing well. Preliminary simulations suggest that XSAGD performance is best with a 1:1 ratio of injectors to producers forming a square grid, as opposed to a rectangular grid or a non-perpendicular grid. Simulations suggest that restricting the production well completion has more influence on improving performance of XSAGD than restricting the injection well, but best results are obtained when both wells have some completion restriction.
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 ».