MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973440954 · doi:10.2118/165471-pa

Optimal Application Conditions for Steam/Solvent Coinjection

2015· article· en· W1973440954 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 Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolventSteam-assisted gravity drainagePetroleum engineeringOil sandsAsphaltSteam injectionReservoir simulationChemistryChemical engineeringEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryGeologyEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Laboratory and field data, although limited in number, have shown that steam/solvent coinjection can lead to a higher oil-production rate, higher ultimate oil recovery, and lower steam/oil ratio, compared with steam-only injection in steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). However, a critical question still remains unanswered: Under what circumstances can the previously mentioned benefits be obtained when steam and solvent are coinjected? To answer this question requires a detailed knowledge of the mechanisms involved in coinjection and an application of this knowledge to numerical simulation. Our earlier studies demonstrated that the determining factors for improved oil-production rates are relative positions with respect to the temperature and solvent fronts, the steam and solvent contents of the chamber at its interface with reservoir bitumen, and solvent-diluting effects on the mobilized bitumen just ahead of the chamber edge. Then, the key mechanisms for improved oil displacement are solvent propagation, solvent accumulation at the chamber edge, and phase transition. This paper deals with this unanswered question by providing some key guidelines for selecting an optimum solvent and its concentration in coinjection of a single-component solvent with steam. The optimization considers the oil-production rate, ultimate oil recovery, and solvent retention in situ. Multiphase behavior of water/hydrocarbon mixtures in the chamber is explained in detail analytically and numerically. The proposed guidelines are applied to simulation of the Senlac solvent-aided-process pilot and the Long Lake expanding-solvent SAGD pilot. Results show that an optimum volatility of solvent can be typically observed in terms of the oil-production rate for given operation conditions. This optimum volatility occurs as a result of the balance between two factors affecting the oil mobility along the chamber edge: reduction of the chamber-edge temperature and superior dilution of oil in coinjection of more-volatile solvent with steam. It is possible to maximize oil recovery and minimize solvent retention in situ by controlling the concentration of a given coinjection solvent. Beginning coinjection immediately after achieving interwell communication enables the enhancement of oil recovery early in the process. Subsequently, the solvent concentration should be gradually decreased until it becomes zero for the final period of the coinjection. Simulation case studies show the validity of the oil-recovery mechanisms described. In the final section of the paper, a limited economic analysis of SAGD and different coinjection cases is provided.

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)0.001
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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.277 · 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