Pore Level Investigation of Oil Mobility Enhancement in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract During the last 20 years, it has been a very large discussion about different production mechanisms to explain the anomalous production behavior observed in some heavy oil reservoirs especially in the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela and Lloydminster in Canada. This behavior has been characterized by high production rates and/or high primary oil recovery, besides good pressure maintenance. A special phenomenon associated to the solution-gas drive mechanism, known as "foamy" or "bubbly oil", seems to be responsible for the recovery of a much higher fraction of the original oil in place. However, the "foamy oil" behavior cannot clearly explain the mechanism of the observed oil mobility enhancement. Considering the physical principles of multiphase flow through porous media, the momentum transfer or viscous coupling appears as a hidden driving mechanism to explain the improved oil mobility. A capillary model is used to assess the importance of lubrication in two-phase flow and to determine the effect of the viscous coupling on relative permeabilities. Different cross-sectional geometries are analyzed. The problem is solved analytically even for the unequal viscosity case. This is the first attempt known to these authors not only of using this analytical method of solution, but also of using the concept of contact angle for determining the fluids distribution inside a non-circular channel. The model results show that the viscosity ratio does affect the relative permeabilities, especially in systems involving heavy oil. Introduction Several heavy oil reservoirs in Canada and Venezuela show higher than expected production rates, low produced gasoil ratio, and high recovery factors during primary production. Typical heavy oil reservoirs are expected to exhibit 2 to 4% recoveries of the original oil in place, whereas these reservoirs exhibit recoveries from 10 to 15% of the original oil.[1] Production rates can be up to 50 to 100 times[2, 3] and as high as 300 times[4] higher than the rate predicted by Darcy's equation. To explain the improved recovery factors, it is necessary to postulate a mechanism that traps a larger fraction of the released solution gas in the reservoir. This mechanism appears to be the so-called "foamy oil", "bubbly oil" flow or "enhanced solution-gas drive". It is a particular form of twophase flow in which at least a part of the released gas flows in the form of dispersed bubbles.[5] On the other hand, to explain the high primary production rates, basically three potential mechanisms have been proposed: sand production; reduction in the oil phase viscosity, and gas lubrication. Some believe that the sand production increases the fluid mobility in the near well zone by increasing the permeability in the affected zone. Continuing sand production generates a growing zone ("wormholes" and cavities) of enhanced permeability that could be considered a growing negative skin effect. However, Smith[6] concluded that the large sand cuts in the Lloydminster area are insufficient to account for the abnormal production rates. Since then, Claridge and Prats[7] have become aware of other reservoirs, in both North and South America, which exhibit large apparent mobilities and have produced essentially no sand.
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 ».