MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1137930095 · doi:10.2118/174416-ms

Use of Flow Control Devices (FCDs) to Enforce Conformance in Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Completions

2015· article· en· W1137930095 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionOil fieldLeverage (statistics)Multiphase flowComputer scienceFlashingEngineeringSimulationMechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flow Control Devices (FCDs) have demonstrated significant potential for improving recovery in Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) production wells. One initial hypothesis was that steam breakthrough was delayed because the FCDs better homogenized injection and production by equalizing flow and compensating for pressure changes along the wellbore. However, in many cases, the field results were far greater than such an approach would have justified. The actual physics for this process are unclear, and not demonstrated in literature. Upon review of field data published by ConocoPhillips, the possibility of a steam blocking effect was proposed (Stalder, 2012), although the physical basis for this effect was not explored. This paper proposes an updated hypothesis to explain this effect, presents preliminary data to support the assumption, and introduces a new apparatus and methodology to characterize FCDs for SAGD applications. The traditional approach to steam control states that steam flashing at the producer should be avoided, as it will eventually lead to a completion failure. Alternatively, the proposed hypothesis contemplates using steam flashing at the producer to regulate flow in various segments of the completion, thus better enforcing conformance. The physics of this process will primarily be described analytically; however, this effect was also observed qualitatively in a small-scale experiment where water was flashed across an orifice. In order to design SAGD completions that leverage FCDs (and this effect), it was necessary to accurately characterize different FCDs under these challenging multiphase flow conditions. Since vendors use a variety of approaches when designing their FCDs, a protocol was developed to create a characterization procedure which was independent of the underlying FCD design and architecture, resulting in a direct comparison of the overall performance of each FCD. Part of this protocol required the construction of a new, high temperature multiphase flow loop capable of subjecting FCDs to representative SAGD operating conditions. Through fine control of the relevant test parameters, accurate performance measurements can be obtained for each FCD. This paper will present some information regarding the design and specifications of this new flow loop, as well as impart some of the lessons learned from its commissioning and initial operation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it