MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965896473 · doi:10.2118/09-01-42

Start-up of SAGD Wells: History Match, Wellbore Design and Operation

2009· article· en· W1965896473 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersUniversity of Wyoming
KeywordsInjectorPetroleum engineeringSteam-assisted gravity drainageWellboreAsphaltSteam injectionOil sandsLost circulationOil fieldGeologyEngineeringDrillingMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A smooth start-up is crucial to the successful operation of a SAGD process. A simulation study was conducted to analyze the start-up or circulation period of SAGD well pairs. A coupled reservoir/wellbore model was developed and used to history match field data obtained from wells with extensive instrumentation at Petro-Canada's MacKay River development. The history matched model was then used to conduct a sensitivity study on some of the parameters that affect the circulation of a well pair. First, the steam-to-toe time was examined for the two typical wellbore completions that Petro-Canada employs at MacKay River. Various flow rates were tested for the two completions to see how the steam injection rate affected the steam-to-toe time. Next, the circulation pressure along with the injector/producer pressure gradient was investigated. Various pressure gradients were applied between the injector and producer to examine the effects on the circulation duration and the formation of steam coning. Finally, the distance between the injector and producer was studied. The purpose was to explore the effect of the vertical separation between the injector and producer wells on conversion time. Introduction The Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process has become the leading in situ bitumen recovery technique in the Athabasca oil sands deposit. In the SAGD process, two horizontal wellbores are drilled approximately 5 m apart vertically. The upper well is used as an injector. High quality steam is injected into the reservoir, heating the bitumen and reducing its viscosity. The bitumen then flows, by gravity, to the lower producer well, and is then produced to the surface. Before the SAGD process can be initiated, the horizontal well pair must be heated by circulating steam in both the injector and producer. The purpose of the circulation process is to heat the near wellbore region and to establish flow communication between the two wells. Two common completions of SAGD horizontal wellbores are shown in Figures 1 and 2. In the injector completion, there is a single long tubing string landed at the toe. The long tubing string is placed within the casing of the well. During circulation, steam is injected down the long tubing string and exits into the annulus at the toe of the well. The steam then travels back to the surface through the annulus of the well. In the producer completion, there are two tubing strings; a long tubing string landed at the toe and a short tubing string landed at the heel. Steam is again circulated down the long tubing string. It then exits into the annulus at the toe and travels to the heel. At the heel, the steam travels back to surface via the short tubing string, versus the annulus in the injector completion. Petro-Canada is operating the MacKay River SAGD commercial project and is preparing for a project expansion. At MacKay River, the initialization of SAGD included three stages(1). The first stage involved getting steam to the toe. To do this, steam is circulated into the long tubing of both the injector and producer at equal pressure.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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