MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044258645 · doi:10.2118/02-03-03

Proposed Air Injection Recovery of Cold-Produced Heavy Oil Reservoirs

2002· article· en· W2044258645 on OpenAlexafffundabout
K.A. Miller, R.G. Moore, R.G. Ursenbach, C.J. Laureshen, S. A. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringSecondary air injectionEnvironmental scienceWater injection (oil production)CombustionIgnition systemEnhanced oil recoveryAsphaltWaste managementGeologyEngineeringMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This concept paper explores the potential applications of air injection (in situ combustion) as a follow-up to cold production of heavy oils. Cold-produced fields are ideal potential candidates for air injection due to the significant resource that remains at the economic limit of cold production, and because wormhole- type channels are present in the depleted reservoir. The authors propose steaming the depleted reservoir for a short period of time to collapse the wormholes, thus creating high permeability heated channels. Reservoir ignition and air injection would follow, with the heated channels providing a flow path for the mobilized oil to reach the production wells. The steam/combustion combination would be highly effective in thin reservoirs, where extended steam injection is uneconomic. Additionally, this process addresses the three technical causes for failure in heavy combustion projects: ineffective ignition, inadequate air injection rates, and temporary plugging of the formation due to blockages caused by high liquid saturations. An overview of cold heavy oil production and heavy oil by in situ combustion is provided, as well as a detailed discussion of the proposed process. Introduction Cold Production in Western Canadian Heavy Oil Regional Sands Western Canada contains extensive heavy oil and bitumen deposits, as is shown in Figure 1. Early primary production of this resource using reciprocating pumps in vertical, directional, or slant wells was only economic in the Lloydminster Block; thus, most of the existing geologic studies are for this area(1–3). Following the development of progressing cavity (PC) pumping technology in the 1980s, cold production from these wells (vertical, directional or slant) was expanded rapidly to several additional areas, including Frog Lake, Elk Point, Lindbergh, and portions of Cold Lake and the Primrose Block. This exploitation methodology provides a large percentage of the produced oil volume for most Western Canadian heavy oil producers; in fact, some producers use only this method. Most cold production of heavy oil has been conducted in regional sands from the Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group (see Figure 2). Stratigraphic nomenclature varies locally, but, in general, most Lloydminster area regional sand cold production is from the Sparky and Waseca sands, while most of the Frog Lake, Elk Point, and Lindbergh cold production is from the Cummings.Regardless of the nomenclature, from a reservoir engineering perspective, these sands are characterized as being relatively thin, clean, with high porosity and permeability, and containing high saturations of heavy oil(4). Figure 3 is a plot of the estimated distribution of oil in place vs. sand thickness for the Lloydminster area, and Table 1 describes regional sand properties. Bottom water and edge water are common features, and a significant fraction of the wells in this region become uneconomic due to rapid water influx. Despite continued efforts to improve PC pump-based cold production technology, current methods generally leave 80 to 95% of the OOIP behind at the economic limit. This is a large oil-in-place target for follow up EOR processes; however, the cold production process appears to have strongly altered reservoir conditions from their original state.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207