Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most SAGD projects require about one to two years for ramp-up. Over this period of time, oil rate will be below peak oil rate and SOR will be higher than long-term steady-state SOR. This paper discusses the effect of steam injection pressure on SAGD ramp-up time, the associated geomechanical effects and optimization of the ramp-up phase of SAGD. Different steam injection pressures induce different reservoir geomechanical behaviour in oil sands. Higher steam injection pressure is capable of inducing more favourable reservoir geomechanical effects (such as shear dilation and isotropic unloading), improving the reservoir permeability, and subsequently, benefiting the long-term SAGD operation. This paper indicates that the ramp-up time can be reduced due to the favourable geomechanical effects. A coupled reservoir geomechanical simulation technique was applied for this investigation. In addition, cap rock integrity concerns when applying high injection pressure are also addressed. It is recommended that during or following the ramp-up phase, the injection pressure be lowered to a safe operating pressure to ensure cap rock integrity. The effects of low and high steam chamber pressures on SAGD oil rate are also discussed. Introduction The steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process has been proven to be the most promising technology for developing the Athabasca oil sands reserves in northern Alberta. In 2001, only four commercial SAGD projects were operating in the field(1). By March 2006, the number of active SAGD projects increased to 15(2). Field SAGD operation experiences and numerical simulation show that the steam injection pressure plays an important role in SAGD production performance. In general, higher steam injection pressure helps lift fluid from downhole to the surface, increases the oil production rate, reduces the overall well life and improves the ultimate oil recovery. Some of these enhancements could result from geomechanical effects induced by higher steam chamber pressure. For the unconsolidated oil sands reservoir under certain in situ stress conditions, higher steam injection pressure tends to induce larger volumetric strain associated with shear dilation, thermal expansion, and even, tensile failure. As a result, reservoir permeability can be improved and oil recovery will be accelerated. Higher steam injection pressure, however, can also have undesirable effects. It may cause the reservoir cap rock to be breached due to geomechanical behaviour, and then result in a very high steam-oil ratio (SOR). Therefore, the time for applying high steam injection pressure needs to be optimized for maximum geomechanical benefits without causing cap rock failure. From the beginning of steam injection to the time when the partially drained zone approaches the cap rock, higher injection pressure may be safely applied. This strategy will accelerate the oil production rate for the ramp-up phase and will attain the peak SAGD oil rate sooner than otherwise possible. This paper applies a coupled reservoir geomechanical simulation (called "coupled simulation") technique(3) to investigate the relationship between the steam injection pressure and the SAGD ramp-up process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".