MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078836664 · doi:10.2118/165402-ms

On Hydrogen Sulfide Evolution and Scavenging within SAGD Steam Chambers

2013· article· en· W2078836664 on OpenAlexaffabout
Punitkumar R. Kapadia, Jacky Wang, Ian D. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen sulfideOil sandsChemistryHydrogenSteam-assisted gravity drainageAsphaltPetroleum engineeringSulfideCarbon dioxideSulfurSolubilityChemical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) thermal recovery process, high pressure and high temperature saturated-steam is injected into a bitumen-bearing oil sands formation. For most operations, the steam temperature ranges from about 200 to 260°C and thus under these conditions, the bitumen, in the presence of high temperature steam condensate, undergoes hydrous pyrolysis, i.e. aquathermolysis, yielding acid gases such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. Current SAGD thermal reservoir simulation models in the literature often take into account complex spatial heterogeneity of the geology and oil composition and the physics of heat transfer, multiphase flow, gas solubility effects, and viscosity variations with temperature, however, few have taken the chemistry of SAGD into account. Here, we have added aquathermolysis reactions to thermal reservoir simulation model to understand reactive zones in the SAGD process and how the process generates acid gases via aquathermolysis. Given the requirement to constrain or handle sulfur emissions from thermal recovery processes, it is necessary to understand both the physical and chemical sides of the processes. Here, we have explored the possibility of triggering the Claus process underground for in situ scavenging of hydrogen sulfide during SAGD. The application of the research results is specifically to SAGD although the results could be extended to Cyclic Steam Stimulation as well. The results demonstrate that SAGD is not only a physical process that operates largely under gravity drainage but that it is also a chemically reactive process which generates hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. The results also demonstrate that hydrogen sulfide generation reactions occur where there is sufficient heat, water, and oil and thus, the reactive zones are mainly at the edges of the steam chamber and in the liquid pool that sits above the production well. Injecting very small amount of sulfur dixode along with steam could result in initiation of Claus reaction underground resulting into conversion of hydrogen sulfide into liquid sulfur. The results of this study are significant given regulated emission limits of hydrogen sulfide from SAGD operations in Alberta, Canada, and moreover, the ability to potentially reduce emissions by altering the operating strategy or through in situ hydrogen sulfide scavengers offers an elegant way to meet these regulations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-CanadaSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207