MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998725169 · doi:10.2118/97370-pa

Application of Gas Lift Technology to a High-Water-Cut Heavy-Oil Reservoir in Intercampo Oilfield, Venezuela

2007· article· en· W1998725169 on OpenAlexaff
Dandan Hu, Wenxin Cai, Guozhen Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Production & Operations · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersPetroChina Company Limited
KeywordsGas liftPetroleum engineeringArtificial liftLift (data mining)Water cutOil fieldEnvironmental scienceOil productionProduced waterOil wellEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper presents successful applications of gas lift technology to heavy-oil reservoirs in Intercampo oilfield, Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. Liquid production rates range from 10 to 320 m3/day per well. Gas lift was selected as the first artificial lift method in the oilfield. The paper describes the gas lift mechanisms applied in a high-water-cut heavy-oil (below 15 API) reservoir. The theoretical analysis showed that the injection gas rate for gas lift and the gas/oil ratio (GOR) of an oil well have direct effects on the fluid flow from the wellbore. Theoretical design and actual gas lift production are described in the paper. The correlations used for artificial gas lift design for high-water-cut heavy oil need to be refined to match the field data. The difference between theoretical design and actual production is significant for high-water-cut heavy oil lower than 15 API. Formation of oil/water emulsion was not observed during gas lifting of low-API, high-water-cut oil from wells. In this study, a correction coefficient for gas lift design was applied to a high-water-cut, low-API field. Further work is needed to refine this gas lift design software. It should prove particularly useful for production engineers in optimizing the design of gas lifting equipment.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Production & OperationsSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207