MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971966656 · doi:10.2118/0114-0069-jpt

Simulation of Flow-Control Devices With Feedback Control for Thermal Operations

2014· article· en· W1971966656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageInflowSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringWellboreGeologyHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringAsphaltGeotechnical engineeringOil sandsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 163594, ’Advanced Wellbore Simulation of Flow-Control Devices With Feedback Control for Thermal Operations,’ by Terry Stone, SPE, Schlumberger Information Solutions; Carlos Emilio Perez Damas, Schlumberger Calgary Regional Technology Centre; Glenn Woiceshyn, SPE, Absolute Completion Technologies; David Hin-Sum Law, SPE, Schlumberger Calgary Regional Technology Centre; George Brown, Schlumberger Fibre Optics Technology; and Peter Olapade and William J. Bailey, SPE, Schlumberger-Doll Research, prepared for the 2013 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 18-20 February. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Factors such as hydraulic gradients in the horizontal completion, geologic and fluid variations in the reservoir, and well-placement issues can produce very poor steam conformance in steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). Using proportional-integral- derivative (PID) feedback to control steam injection can lead to improvements in SAGD. Inflow- or injection-control devices (ICDs) can also improve SAGD performance. This paper examines detailed wellbore simulations of a SAGD process in which wells are equipped with a combination of ICD completions and feedback control to determine the physical mechanisms and outline practical procedures to determine an improved ICD completion and feedback-control design. Introduction SAGD is the most extensively used process for development of the bitumen resources in western Canada. Fig. 1 shows the concept of this process in which two closely spaced horizontal wells are placed such that the upper well injects steam and the lower producer collects reservoir fluids that drain mostly by gravity from a constantly evolving steam chamber. Ideally, the steam chamber evolves uniformly along the entire length of the well pair. However, the actual pattern of SAGD well pairs shows very irregular steam-chamber development along the lengths of most of the pairs in the pattern. For many years, SAGD operators in this region have been evaluating methods to improve conformance along well pairs. One such method is to install dual- tubing strings in the injector and producer. Prescribed injection and production rates from each tubing string may be determined from a reservoir-engineering analysis of the formation around the pair, but such analyses are often inexact. In order to prevent the steam chamber from touching the lower producer, which would then remove hot steam instead of using it more efficiently in the upper reaches of the chamber, the injection and production rates are usually set to maintain a prescribed temperature difference between fluids exiting the upper injector and entering the lower producer. This temperature difference, also referred to as a “subcool” because it is set to be several degrees below a water saturation temperature, may be controlled at both the heel and the toe of the well pair by use of the ability to inject and produce from the two tubing strings that are landed at these points. However, setting these injection and production rates to reflect the current state of the reservoir and current subcool is difficult with conventional reservoir-engineering analysis. To improve on this, a proposal was made to use a feedback controller to monitor temperatures of produced and injected fluids automatically, with a target subcool at the heel and the toe of the well pair. By targeting the same subcool at the heel and the toe, two objectives are accomplished: (1) achieving the subcool prevents steam from entering the lower producer, and (2) both toe and heel halves are encouraged to produce uniformly because both are targeting the same subcool (i.e., if one-half temporarily operates at a lower or higher subcool than the target, steam injection is decreased or increased, respectively, in that half to compensate). Another method to improve conformance is to install carefully constructed ICDs in either the injector or the producer, or in both. When placed in the injector, these devices can equalize the outflow of steam from heel to toe better, regardless of variations in reservoir mobility properties.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207