MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064272980 · doi:10.1007/s13202-012-0032-z

Improving downhole pump efficiency and well productivity in heavy oil reservoirs utilizing back pressure regulator

2012· article· en· W2064272980 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farshid Torabi, Benyamin Yadali Jamaloei, Sam-Yeol Hong, Nadeem K. Bakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringInstallationCasingBack pressureEnvironmental scienceWell controlOil wellEngineeringDrillingMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A highly unconsolidated undersaturated reservoir producing heavy oil with an API of 12.1° is located in Lindbergh Field of Elk Point area, Alberta, Canada. A specific well in this reservoir was initially designed to produce oil via a cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) mechanism. However, a large amount of the sand production on a daily basis plugged the progressive cavity pump installed in the well. The cost of well services to unplug the pump on a monthly basis exceeded the revenue from produced oil, and thus, the well was considered uneconomic. Various techniques have been sought to control the sand production and to increase the cumulative oil production and the pump efficiency. Installing screens and meshes in the production interval of the wellbore was analyzed as a solution to the sand production. Installing screens increased the skin factor and resulted in a very low production rate of 0.15 m3/day. The cost of purchasing and installing screens was estimated to be approximately $87,650 with five shut-in days. In addition, the screens also needed further sand clean up, which is an expensive process. Hence, the screens were not recommended for this candidate well. A Back-pressure regulator (BPR) is currently installed on the casing of the well. The initial purpose of installing BPR on the casing was to control the wellbore pressure. The BPR restricts the flow of gas vented through the casing-tubing annulus. This study analyzes the effects of restricting flow of the vented gas such as solution gas reduction, which causes (i) higher settling velocity for the sand grain, (ii) lower Basic sediment and water (BS&W), and (iii) lower in situ oil density. The production data of candidate well obtained from AccuMap (v.18.12) shows that the production hours increased significantly after installing BPR. This is because the number of well services reduced by 90 %. This results in an approximately $34,000 per month increase in profit (assuming $30.00/barrel of oil) for each well. This shows one million dollars savings on a monthly basis when the application of the BPR installation is implemented on 30 similar wells. The cost of the BPR installed on well is $328.00, and there is no operating cost involved since the cost of additional, necessary maintenance and operation is nearly negligible. Moreover, this study provides the field examples of improper BPR operation, which resulted in economic loss. Possible solutions to fix the improper installation of BPR are proposed as well.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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