MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981046750 · doi:10.2118/137269-pa

Noncondensable Gas Distribution in SAGD Chambers

2011· article· en· W1981046750 on OpenAlexafffund
Jian-Yang Yuan, Joyce Chen, G. E. Pierce, B. Wiwchar, H. Golbeck, Xinkui Wang, Gilles Beaulieu, Shauna Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMethaneScannerPetroleum engineeringMechanicsEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyChemistryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper summarizes a set of SAGD experiments conducted live under an X-ray scanner. These experiments were specifically designed for mapping noncondensable gas distribution and their movement in an active steam chamber during SAGD. Many researches over the past 3 decades have shown that noncondensable gases may have critical impacts on SAGD performance. Some may be positive and others may be negative, depending on reservoir and operating conditions. To better use the positives, avoid the negatives, and for better SAGD performance predictions, it is crucial to understand how these gases behave in a steam chamber. It is arguable that noncondensable gases tend to accumulate at the steam front where steam condenses. However, this assertion has only been supported by numerical simulations. Field observation data have been too sparse. Meaningful tracking of gas production is not a normal practice in the field. The first experiment was conducted in an aluminum vessel packed with 4 darcy sands at 1.0 MPa. The second experiment was conducted in a scalable system consisting of a titanium pressure vessel and a PEEK cell, allowing the SAGD experiment to run at 2.1 MPa. Both experiments used bitumen fully saturated with methane at reservoir conditions and were run live under the X-ray scanner. X-ray images were taken at given time intervals. Temperature profiles were obtained directly from thermocouples. Density profiles were computed from the X-ray images. Methane in the free gas phase were calculated and mapped. After each experiment, samples from the opened cell were also tested for additional observation and confirmation. These experiments confirmed the assertion that noncondensable gas tends to concentrate along the steam front. It was also demonstrated that the steam temperature zone does not coincide with the oil-depleted zone, indicating that in a SAGD reservoir with nontrivial presence of noncondensable gases, temperature measurements at observation wells alone would not reflect the boundary of the steam chamber. The more representative measure of a steam chamber should be the mapping of the oil-depleted zone. A more comprehensive monitoring of gas production plus 4D seismic would be needed to determine the oil-depleted zone in the field 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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