Design and Field Evaluation of Tubing Deployed Passive Outflow Control Devices in SAGD Injection Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The integration of horizontal wells and thermal oil recovery methods, such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), has enabled the economic exploitation of extra-heavy oil resources, mainly in Canada. The use of passive outflow control devices (OCDs) in SAGD wells adds steam injection points along the horizontal wellbore influencing steam placement and chamber growth; thus, potentially reducing the steam-to-oil ratio (SOR), productivity uncertainty and accelerating production. For designing OCD installations in SAGD, we need to address two main aspects. Firstly, the interface between horizontal wellbore hydraulics and reservoir injectivity that allows determining the optimum number and location of the steam injection points. Secondly, the design of the OCD itself, which involves selecting and configuring the device with a hydraulic performance that is fit for purpose. For this study we will focus specifically on straight-orifice choke passive OCDs. This paper presents a comprehensive design methodology for tubing deployed passive OCDs in SAGD. The completion design is carried out with a steady-state model of the injection well using a commercial thermal wellbore simulator. The field performance evaluation of tubing deployed passive OCDs is critical for verifying the effectiveness of the design methodology and the hydraulic performance of the devices under real field conditions. The field evaluation is done by history matching the injection pressure vs. steam rate data with a model developed in the thermal wellbore simulator. A dynamic pressure gradient (under flowing conditions) in the injection string carrying the OCDs is obtained with a temperature log, taken with fiber optic technology, where the temperature data is converted to pressure by virtue of the properties of saturated steam. This approach is new for the SAGD industry. The OCDs hydraulic field performance was successfully matched with the simulated model, which indicates the effectiveness of the design methodology, the field performance evaluation techniques and the effectiveness of the OCDs in delivering the desired amount of steam at each location.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".