MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986839332 · doi:10.2118/150646-ms

Heavy Oil Production With Steam Injection Using ESPs

2011· article· en· W1986839332 on OpenAlex
Mohammed Issa, J. Morgan Fleming, Kelvin Wonitoy

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringArtificial liftEnvironmental scienceGas liftCorrosionSteam-assisted gravity drainageEnhanced oil recoveryFuel oilWaste managementOil productionOil sandsEngineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Heavy oil production using steam injection has become a common method of extracting oil. It is considered an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) method and is one of the extraction methods used in thermal stimulation of oil reservoirs. Steam injection is widely used in the San Joaquin Valley of California (USA), the oil sands of northern Alberta (Canada) and Venezuela. Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has become one of the more cost effective methods of producing fluid from oil sand reservoirs. This same technology is being applied to heavy oil reservoirs where viscosity is an issue. Wells involving steam injection operate at bottom hole temperatures (BHT) of 180°C to 250°C This is true when electrical submersible pumping systems (ESPs) are used, however when gas lift or rod lift are employed the BHT can exceed 320°C. This market requirement pushed the vendors to develop ESPs capable of operating continuously at these temperatures for reasonably acceptable run times (2 yrs +). The equipment specifications for materials and designs for this type of application involve the use of many high tech metals and elastomers designed for extreme temperature operation and temperature cycling. Steam assisted recovery projects challenge the ESPs with elevated temperatures, temperature cycling, H2S corrosion, abrasives, steam, and free gas. Development of steam injection projects parallel the similar requirements for equipment development used to run in harsh environments (high H2S), H2S-resistant materials can be used in varying configurations depending on the H2S quantity and the BHT. High-strength shafting and corrosion-resistant couplings, fasteners, and housings offer the most protection from corrosive elements. Cable and motor lead extensions (MLE) benefit from the application of lead barrier protection. Major developments in the insulating materials required for the stator, cable and motor lead extension enabled operators to increase the reliability of the ESP even when exposed to high temperatures and corrosive environments. The Centrilift CENtigrade™ elevated temperature production systems family is able to operate successfully in the harshest conditions. This product family consists of the Centrilift High Temperature™ ESP system, Centrilift Extreme Temperature™ ESP system, and Centrilift Ultra Temperature™ ESP system. Baker Hughes has a proven record of success with this equipment (Fort McMurray oil sands in Alberta, Canada), making it the first company to deploy ESPs capable of operating reliably at bottom hole temperatures as high as 250°C. The Baker Hughes Centrilift™ artificial lift product line offers ESPs, progressing cavity pumping systems (PCPs), gas lift, and surface pumps. This paper will focus on the development, capabilities and the successful implementation of the CENtigrade production systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.193 · 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