MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075076909 · doi:10.2118/136402-pa

Methodology for Estimating Recovered Solvent in Solvent-Aided Process

2012· article· en· W2075076909 on OpenAlexafffund
Subodh Gupta, Simon Gittins, Christian Canas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)
FundersCenovus Energy
KeywordsSolventAsphalteneAsphaltAPI gravityChemistryPetroleum engineeringChemical engineeringChromatographyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPetroleumGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The solvent-aided process (SAP) is a solvent-based enhancement of steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) in which small amounts of solvent, such as light alkanes or natural-gas liquids, are added to the injected steam to enhance reservoir performance and associated project economics. Expectedly, the economics with SAP are sensitive to the solvent recovered from the reservoir, making its measurement in a field test an important factor. When a single-component solvent such as butane, which is not generally present in the produced heavy oil or bitumen, is used in SAP, estimation of the recovered solvent can be achieved uniquely. But when the solvent also has heavier components, some of which overlap with the lighter components of the produced oil, the measurement is not straightforward. The problem is compounded by the fact that the interaction with the reservoir changes the composition of the produced solvent and makes it time variant on account of different resident times associated with different components. The issue is further complicated by the fact that produced oil also undergoes an in-situ solvent deasphalting process (SDA), which is also time and space variant in the reservoir. If there were no in-situ SDA, one potential method to measure the amount of produced solvent would be to measure the total asphaltene content as an oil "marker" in the produced blend. Use of a tracer with injected solvent, as well as regression-based analyses for solvent fraction (using compositional analyses of solvent, bitumen, and the blend) of the produced blend, is error prone for these same reasons. Because of the issues in these approaches, a new method is desirable for a more-robust and unique assessment of the solvent amount in the produced fluids. This paper elaborates on the current challenges and proposes a couple of workable methods, including use of maltenes/metals content as oil markers as well as the use of boiling-point curves of the produced blend compared with the boiling point of the base oil. Such techniques of estimating the recovered solvent can facilitate a more-objective assessment of SAP field tests and enable economic evaluation of SAP application to a commercial scale.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207