MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037113553 · doi:10.2118/07-04-cs

Field Test of SAGD as Follow-Up Process to CSS in Liaohe Oil Field of China

2007· article· en· W2037113553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liuqing Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil in placeSteam-assisted gravity drainageOil fieldOil viscositySteam injectionGeologyPilot testOil productionOil sandsEnvironmental scienceViscosityPetroleumAsphaltMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Du 84 block of the Shu-1 area in the Liaohe Oil Field is located in Panjin City, Liaoning Province, China. The production formation, Guantao, contains extra heavy oil with a depth of 530–640 m. The reservoir is characterized in thick pay, with high permeability and a very active aquifer. The dead oil viscosity is 230,000 mPa.s at 50 °C. Although the Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) process using vertical wells has been applied successfully in producing oil from the reservoir, the anticipated ultimate oil recovery is less than 29% of the original oil in place (OOIP). To enhance oil recovery beyond that of the CSS, physical and numerical modeling studies were carried out. The Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process using a combination of vertical and horizontal wells was proposed as a follow-up process to CSS. An additional 27% recovery is anticipated with the proposed follow-up process. This would give a total recovery of 56%. A pilot with four horizontal producers was implemented in the field. CSS was used initially in the horizontal wells for establishing the communication with the surrounding vertical wells. The pilot was then converted successfully to SAGD operations with horizontal wells as continuous producers and some of the surrounding vertical wells as continuous injectors. A total of 44,500 m3 of oil has been produced over the 12 months of SAGD operations between June 2005 and June 2006. The field implementation process and pilot performance, as well as the challenges with this project, are presented in this paper. Introduction This paper is the continuation of an earlier work(1) in which a field pilot was proposed for testing Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) as a follow-up process to CSS based on a reservoir model and feasibility studies. Two field pilot projects were constructed in 2003 in the Du 84 block of the Su-1 area in the Liaohe Oil Field. One pilot is producing from the Xinglongtai formation and the other one is producing from the Guantao formation. The pilot in the Guantao formation was converted to SAGD operations in early 2005 and the field results are encouraging. The field performance from this pilot is reported in this paper. The Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process, which was described by Dr. R.M. Butler in the late 1970's(2), has been applied successfully for the production of bitumen and heavy oil since it was tested in the Underground Test Facility (UTF) in the Athabasca oil sands of Alberta, Canada(3). Several commercial projects have been implemented in the field in Canada since then. The Liaohe Oilfield Company constructed its first SAGD pilot in China in 1996 in the Xinlongtai formation, which contains extra heavy oil at a depth of 750 m from the surface. The pilot consisted of one stacked well pair and was operated for about one and a half years. The suspension of the pilot test was due to:insufficient lift capacity provided by the gas lift system; and,difficulties in communication resulting from too large a vertical separation between the injector and the producer.

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)0.001
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 score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207