MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058530970 · doi:10.2118/01-01-06

Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)-4;Recent Theoretical Developments and Laboratory Results Using Layered Models

2001· article· en· W2058530970 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R.M. Butler, Qirong Jiang, C.T. Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSuncor Energy IncorporatedCanadian Natural Resources LimitedImperial College LondonUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOverburdenNatural gasFossil fuelVolume (thermodynamics)Permeability (electromagnetism)ChemistrySteam injectionPetroleumWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringThermodynamicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper is a continuation of earlier papers on the development of the SAGP process presented at Annual Technical Meetings of the Petroleum Society. SAGP improves the thermal efficiency of SAGD by adding non-condensible gas to the steam. Significant steam savings are achieved by lowering the average temperature in the reservoir and by reducing heat loss to the overburden. Rising gas fingers increase the pressure towards the top of the reservoir and displace oil downwards even though the temperature is below that of saturated steam. The gas hold-up in the reservoir equals the volume of the produced oil, with allowance for the effects of pressure, temperature, and partial pressure of the steam. The gas in the chamber comes from the combination of added gas, solution gas, and gas generated by chemical reactions, minus gas produced with the oil and the net gas driven to or coming from outside the depleted region by pressure difference. The gas hold-up and gas dissolved were estimated and it was found that, in general, more gas is required for higher pressures. Effects of layered sands on SAGD and SAGP performance are studied experimentally using a physical model. In SAGD, steam spreads below the low-permeability layers and oil cannot drain from above until the steam vapour can penetrate to replace it. In SAGP, gas fingers rise into the low-permeability layers and displace the oil downwards below steam temperature. Mechanisms for the enhancement of oil drainage from the low-permeability layers by gas fingers are discussed together with the experimental results. SAGP continues to show promising results and it is thought that results in the field will be better than in our experiments. Introduction Several papers(1-4) have been presented on the theoretical and laboratory studies of the Steam and Gas Push (SAGP) process since it was described first in 1997 at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society. The process improves the thermal efficiency for SAGD by adding a small amount of noncondensible gas to the injected steam. Steam condenses and leaves concentrated gas in the upper portion of the vapour chamber. As a result, only the region near the injector and producer, where the gas concentration is low, is heated to the temperature of saturated steam. The upper part of the reservoir remains at a relatively low temperature and the heat loss is low; significant steam is saved. The gas required to achieve the SAGP effect is obtained from gas dissolved in the oil, gas generated by chemical reaction, net reservoir gas flowing into the recovery region, and gas supplied from injection. In heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, such as those in Athabasca and Cold Lake, the operating pressure for SAGD is usually higher than the initial reservoir pressure and gas injection is required. The required gas hold-up in the vapour chamber is related to the volume of oil produced, with allowances for operating pressures and temperature. To make the injected gas more effective in the chamber, the production of gas should be minimum.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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