MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995207805 · doi:10.2118/03-03-02

Lab-Scale Numerical Simulation of SAGD Process in the Presence of Top Thief Zones: A Mechanistic Study

2003· article· en· W1995207805 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsAlberta Oil Sands Technology and Research AuthoritySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainagePetroleum engineeringGeologyComputer simulationFossil fuelSteam injectionBottom waterOil sandsEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a major concern in the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process that the existence of thief zones such as top water and/or a gas cap overlying the oil sand deposit has a detrimental effect on the oil recovery. The objective of this numerical study is to investigate the mechanisms that govern the oil and steam loss during the SAGD process in the presence of a top water zone or a gas cap. The reservoir model, STARS, developed by the Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd. was first validated based on history matching of two 3D SAGD laboratory experiments with a top water zone and a gas cap, respectively. The experiments that were designed to mimic SAGD processes in the Athabasca region were conducted at field conditions of reservoir pressure and steam injection temperature. It was found that STARS was capable of history matching the top water and gas cap experiments. Therefore, it is believed that the numerical simulation captured the major mechanism of oil movement from the oil zone into the top thief zones as observed in the experiments. Lab-scale numerical sensitivity study indicated that oil movement from the oil zone into the top thief zones occurred when a very small pressure gradient existed between the oil zone and the top thief zone (e.g., < 10 kPa/m). Higher-pressure gradients resulted in more oil and steam movements into the top thief zone, less oil production, and a higher steam-oil ratio. Introduction There is a major concern by Alberta oil producers that the production of natural gas in association with oil sands would lower reservoir pressure, reduce oil recovery, and may prohibit the economic recovery of any oil. The Alberta Department of Energy (ADOE) and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) initiated a series of field-scale numerical modelling studies(1, 2) to assess the potential applicability of the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) oil recovery process under a variety of reservoir conditions such as reservoir thickness, reservoir depth, initial pressure, oil saturation, and the presence of top water zones and gas caps. It was found that top water zones and gas caps are thief zones to the SAGD process. These thief zones have a detrimental effect on SAGD recovery performance, especially when the pressure in the thief zones is reduced below optimum SAGD operating pressures due to natural gas production. Movement of oil into the top water zones and gas caps is simulated to occur. The volume of this oil seems to be generally proportional to the amount of outflow from the pattern due to the thickness of the top water zones/gas caps and the pressure difference between the steam chamber and the top thief zones. SAGD process costs depend on the amount of steam that flows into the top water zones and gas caps, from which no oil is produced. A case in point is the Surmont oil sands lease, which Gulf planned to develop with a SAGD pilot starting in June 1997 followed quickly by commercial development.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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