MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048403548 · doi:10.2118/113283-ms

A Critical Review of the Status of SAGD: Where Are We and What Is Next?

2008· review· en· W2048403548 on OpenAlexaff
Al Muatasim M. Al-Bahlani, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringProcess (computing)Residual oilScale (ratio)AsphaltOil sandsSteam-assisted gravity drainageFossil fuelLead (geology)Process engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringEngineeringGeologyWaste managementMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With around 7 trillion barrels reserves and recent increase in oil demand, there is no doubt that there would be tremendous effort on the development of heavy-oil/bitumen (HO-B) reservoirs in the next decades. Yet the in-situ recovery of HO-B is still not a simple process and there are many technical challenges accompanied with it. Two major techniques, namely thermal and miscible, have been considered in the HO-B development, along with several other auxiliary methods (chemical, gas, electromagnetic heating etc.) for different well configurations, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) being the most popular among others. Miscible techniques did not yet go to a high commercial level, while thermal techniques have by far a stable foundation in the industry. Despite remarkable amount of laboratory experiments and computational studies on the thermal techniques for HO-B, especially SAGD, there was no extensive and critical literature review of the knowledge gained over almost three decades. We believe that a critical review of the status of the SAGD process will fill the gap by shedding light on the deficiencies and limitations of the process, further development areas, and new research topics. Specific attention, in this paper, was given to (a) the effect of geological environment on the physics of the process, (b) evaluation of the laboratory scale procedure and results (reasons of residual oil saturation, is it well configuration or pore scale dynamics?) and the reasons of the inconsistency between the lab and field scale performances, (c) problems faced in numerical modelling (capturing the physics of the process, relative permeability curves, dynamics of gravity controlled counter-current flow), (d) evaluation of the pilot and commercial level field applications, and (e) operational and technical challenges. It is believed that a good compilation of the records produced over three decades will constitute a useful reference for the industry and academic people.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207