A Performance Comparison Study of Electromagnetic Heating and SAGD Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Downhole electrical heating has proven as an attractive alternative of lowering the oil viscosity by raising the temperature in the formation. Because reservoirs with characteristics such as extremely low permeability, very thin pay-zone, and extra-heavy oil are generally not feasible for steam injection based Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques, and the application of low- frequency Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH) has been demonstrated to limit the heating rate as well as the production rate. Hence, high frequency Electromagnetic Heating (EMH) has been chosen as a potential candidate to a reservoir for which other thermal recovery techniques are not suitable. This study presents both an oil single phase radial flow and oil-gas two-phase linear flow EMH model with COMSOL. Result shows that EM heating is practicable and cost effective under certain constraints in the real field. Parametric study indicates that the cumulative oil production achieved by EMH can be enhanced by a similar EOR approach called Single Well Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SW-SAGD) simulated in STARS for reservoirs with the above mentioned characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".