MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039829208 · doi:10.2118/167258-pa

Understanding the Convection Heat-Transfer Mechanism in the Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage Process

2013· article· en· W2039829208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mazda Irani, Ian D. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageHeat transferThermal conductionConvectionAsphaltConvective heat transferMechanicsHeat fluxSteam injectionFlow (mathematics)Petroleum engineeringNatural convectionThermodynamicsGeologyChemistryOil sandsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is the preferred method to extract bitumen from Athabasca oil-sand reservoirs in western Canada. In SAGD, steam, injected outward from a horizontal injection well, loses its latent heat when it contacts the cold bitumen at the edge of a steam chamber. Consequently, the viscosity of the bitumen falls several orders of magnitude, enabling it to flow under gravity toward a horizontal production well directly below to the injection well. It is commonly believed that conduction is the dominant heat-transfer mechanism at the edge of the chamber. Heat transfer by convection is not considered in classic SAGD mathematical models such as the one derived by Butler. Researchers such as Butler and Stephens (1981), Reis (1992), Akin (2005), Liang (2005), Nukhaev et al. (2006), and Azad and Chalaturnyk (2010) considered the conduction from steam to cold reservoir to be the only heat-transfer component. Farouq-Ali (1997), Edmunds (1999a, b), Ito and Suzuki (1996, 1999), Ito et al. (1998), Sharma and Gates (2011), and Irani and Ghannadi (2013) questioned the assumption that thermal conduction dominates heat transfer at the edge of a SAGD chamber. Sharma and Gates (2011) and Irani and Ghannadi (2013) studied convective flux from condensate flow at the edge of an SAGD steam chamber. Irani and Ghannadi (2013) derived a new formulation that solves the energy balance and pressure-driven condensate flow normal to the steam-chamber interface into the cold bitumen reservoir and concluded that the assumption of conduction-dominated heat transfer is valid; however, all previous analyses do not include convective heat transfer arising from draining bitumen and condensate. Although a few researchers have studied convective flux from condensate flow at the edge of an SAGD steam chamber (e.g., Sharma and Gates 2011; Irani and Ghannadi 2013), there is a lack of understanding of bitumen and condensate drainage parallel to the edge of the chamber and of its effect on transverse heat transfer into the oil sand beyond the chamber. In this study, the relative roles of convective heat flux both parallel and normal to the edge of a steam chamber are examined. The results suggest that the convective heat flux associated with flow parallel to the chamber edge is minor compared with that normal to the edge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207