Evaluation of Recovery Technologies for the Grosmont Carbonate Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Upper Devonian Grosmont Formation is a bitumensaturated, carbonate unit located in northern Alberta. It is considered to be one of the worl's next largest unconventional oil resource plays. Since early 2006, there has been an increased interest in Grosmont resources exhibited by a range of companies including super-majors. Several in-situ pilot tests were conducted in the central portion of this area in the 1970s and 1980s utilizing steam and in-situ combustion processes. Similar to field tests in the McMurray Formation oil sands prior to invention of the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process, none of the early recovery technologies tested were proven to be economic. As the "gravity" drainage process has been proven successful in commercial development of the McMurray Formation oil sands since mid to late 1990s, the recovery potential for the Grosmont Formation should be re-evaluated based on improved recovery techniques. Results from cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) field tests are compared and analyzed to understand the similarity and fundamental differences in reservoir properties between the McMurray Formation oil sands and the Grosmont Formation carbonate rocks. A preliminary interpretation is provided for laboratory test results for solvent processes applied to Grosmont carbonate cores. The scaling considerations from the laboratory results to field expectations are discussed. The paper also provides a direction for future studies and optimization opportunities for reservoir recovery leading to the commercial development of Grosmont carbonate reservoirs. Introduction The estimated original bitumen in place (OBIP) in the Grosmont carbonate reservoir is 51 billion m3 or 320 billion bbl [1]. It is by far the largest heavy oil carbonate reservoir in the world. In comparison with the McMurray Formation in the Athabasca oil sands area, the carbonates of the Grosmont Formation have a very complex porosity and fluid mobility system as well as a highly heterogeneous oil saturation, a more hydrophobic rock matrix, and a poorly understood geomechanical property. The platform carbonates of the Grosmont Formation that form the best potential reservoirs have predictable and mappable lithology over several hundred square kilometers whereas the vertically homogeneous channel sandemulsification of heavy oil in formation brine under slight interfacial disturbance. Tertiary oil recovery in sandpack flood tests reached more than 20% OOIP. Liu et al.[7] studied the synergy of alkali and surfactant in emulsifying a heavy oil in brine. deposits that comprise the best-performing McMurray Formation reservoirs are limited in areal extent and require significant delineation in order to map accurately. While the Grosmont reservoir is very attractive from the resource point of view, the differences in reservoir characteristics pose significant challenges to reservoir development. The first field operation attempt in the Grosmont Formation started in December 1974 by Union Oil in the Chipewyan River area, Section 21 of T89-R21-W4. The objective of the pilot was to test reservoir injectivity, well completion techniques and to recover bitumen samples for characterization. One cycle of CSS steam injection and production was conducted in two vertical wells, 14B-21 and 11E-21. The operation ended in April 1975.
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 | 0,001 | 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 ».