MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054164648 · doi:10.2118/04-04-02

A Simulator for Solution-Gas Drive in Heavy Oils

2004· article· en· W2054164648 on OpenAlexafffundabout
O. Talabi, M. Pooladi‐Darvish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersImperial Oil LimitedUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)Relative permeabilityPetroleum engineeringPorous mediumPermeability (electromagnetism)Viscous fingeringVolumetric flow rateMechanicsCapillary actionBubbleChemistryBubble pointCapillary numberViscosityThermodynamicsPorosityGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Solution-gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs is a complex process, and the mechanisms involved are not fully understood. In the past, these reservoirs have been modelled by altering variables such as critical gas saturation, bubble point pressure, relative permeability curves, fluid properties, and rock properties during sand production. Numerous investigations have shown that gas mobility in heavy oil remains extremely low. Furthermore, experimental observations have suggested that gas mobility depends not only on gas saturation, but also on depletion rate and oil viscosity. It is therefore thought that the viscous forces at the microscopic level affect gas mobility. The dependence of relative permeability to gas on parameters other than gas saturation has been observed previously in processes such as foam flow through porous media, and displacement near miscible conditions, where the ratio of viscous forces to capillary forces is large. In this work, we have developed a numerical simulator where the "apparent" gas relative permeability is a function of rate and gas saturation. The developed model is used to simulate a previously reported set of experiments of solution-gas drive in heavy oils, where the dependence of gas mobility on depletion rate has been observed. It is shown that a model with rate-dependent relative permeability functions can explain many features of solution- gas drive in heavy oil, in particular, its rate-dependent recovery behaviour. Introduction Field experience in many heavy oil reservoirs in Canada and Venezuela have shown that recoveries in the order of 10 - 15% may be achieved under primary depletion(1, 2). Typical observations are high oil production rate, high primary oil recovery, and good pressure maintenance. This behaviour is in contrast with the traditional view of solution-gas drive, where gas flows much faster than oil, leading to high producing GOR, loss of reservoir energy, and low recovery. Many of these reservoirs are produced along with significant amounts of reservoir sand. In addition to the related geomechanical effects, a special fluid flow behaviour is necessary to explain some of the observations, including low producing GOR and high recoveries. There have been very different explanations for the abnormal characteristics observed during solution-gas drive in these heavy oil reservoirs. Smith(1) suggested a simultaneous oil and gas flow in porous media in which the gas is entrained in the oil as tiny bubbles. More recently, Kamp et al.(3) developed a model for the entrained flow of gas in oil, which incorporated a constitutive equation for the viscosity of the bubbly mixture. Maini et al.(4) conducted experiments using unconsolidated sand-packs with heavy oils, and observed high pressure gradients representative of very low gas mobilities. The authors attributed this behaviour to what they called "Foamy Oil Flow." Pooladi-Darvish and Firoozabadi(5) were the first to report quantitative estimates of the phase mobilities under solution-gas drive in heavy oil. They performed depletion experiments in a sand-pack saturated with live oil, and used both light and heavy oil for comparison. Analysis of the data suggested that gas relative permeabilities in heavy oil might be as low as 10−6 - 10−5.

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)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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