MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008163709 · doi:10.2118/2000-020

SAGD Application in Gas Cap and Top Water Oil Reservoirs

2000· article· en· W2008163709 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Oil Sands Technology and Research AuthoritySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceDownloadOperations researchPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper presents experimental results on the impact of top water and gas caps on SAGD performance. The effect of the top thief zone on oil drainage rates and potential oil and steam loss into the top zone were measured. The study involved the use of a large scale high-pressure / high temperature experimental facility for injecting steam into an oil sand pack and measuring oil drainage rates and development of temperature ahead of the steam chamber. Numerical modeling was conducted to predict field scale performance using the CMG's STARS simulator. An elemental experimental approach was used in the study to simulate a generic reservoir in the Athabasca region with a pay zone thickness of 50 m and an overlying thief zone thickness of 8 m. In this approach, a reservoir element was selected close to the oil / top thief zone interface. The element was located ahead of an advancing steam front. In order to set the initial conditions of the laboratory element to be similar to those in the field, field scale numerical simulation was conducted to determine the temperature distribution in the element. The field scale temperature profile was established in the laboratory elemental model to represent the element's initial temperature before the start of steam injection during the experiments. The paper discusses the results from the study and highlights the potential implications of the top thief zone on SAGD applications. In addition, differences between gas cap and top water thief zones on impacting the thermal and recovery efficiency of the SAGD process are demonstrated. Introduction There is a major concern by oil producers that the gas production from the gas cap overlying the oil sand deposit has a significant detrimental effect on oil recovery. A case in point is the Surmont oil sands lease, which Gulf operates a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) pilot, and plans to follow quickly by commercial development. The lease has a top gas zone and a mobile water sand zone overlying the oil sand pay zone. An observation well indicates that the gas cap pressure at the pilot site has fallen from 1327 kPa to 858 kPa over 3 years due to production of the gas. It is estimated that the pressure may fall to less than 300 kPa when the gas wells are abandoned. Based on the geology and pressure measurements, there is communication between the gas cap and the oil sands. This indicates that the gas cap may be a thief zone at the pilot site. It is also believed that the mobile top water zone may extend the area of influence of the pressure-depleted gas caps. As part of the ADOE/EUB Task Force studying this problem, numerical studies on SAGD processes in reservoirs with top water / gas cap zones were conducted by ADOE1,2 as well as the oil and gas producers.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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