MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010694815 · doi:10.2118/157773-ms

A Mechanism of Gas Production in SAGD

2012· article· en· W2010694815 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

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissolutionSolubilityPetroleum engineeringMethaneHydrogenCarbon dioxideProduction (economics)Environmental scienceChemistryGeologyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dissolution of gas in both water and bitumen as a mechanism contributing to gas production in SAGD is studied. The contribution of this mechanism to the production of gas in SAGD is evaluated through the implementation of appropriate thermodynamic models into a series of numerical simulations in order to more accurately represent the physics of gas behavior inside the SAGD chamber. Methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide are considered. It is observed from the numerical simulation results that the production of a gas in SAGD is directly proportional to the solubility of that gas in the liquid phases being produced. Additionally, these results lead to the conclusion that gas dissolution is an important mechanism in gas production. Results from this study also confirm the findings observed by other researchers that gas will accumulate at the front and top of the SAGD chamber, thus reducing SOR and oil production rates. The degree of such accumulation of gas depends, among other operational and reservoir conditions, on the solubility of that gas in the liquid phases under the temperature and pressure conditions inside the steam chamber.

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 score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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