MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127454723 · doi:10.2118/07-01-02

The False Lucre of Low-Pressure SAGD

2007· article· en· W2127454723 on OpenAlexafffund
P.M. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageSteam injectionOil sandsPetroleum engineeringAsphaltLatent heatThermalProcess (computing)Environmental scienceWaste managementGeologyEngineeringMaterials scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The recent trend in SAGD is towards low-pressure steam injection. The intention is to be more thermally efficient: steam at lower pressures has a greater proportion of its heat as latent heat, which is the dominant source of heat released to the cold reservoir. The oil sand then warms up to the steam temperature, thus mobilizing the bitumen. The SAGD process must be thermally efficient for optimal economic viability. However, a more rigorous examination of the SAGD process presented here, inclusive of surface processes, reveals that there are fewer thermal benefits in operating at lower pressures. In addition, SAGD will be hindered by low-pressure injection due to higher viscosities and the inhibited dilation of the unconsolidated sandstone reservoir. This paper demonstrates that a complete analysis of the SAGD process favours operation at high pressures, and that SAGD at low pressures will be less effective. Introduction Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has been successfully applied to the in-situ thermal recovery of bitumen beginning with AOSTRA's Underground Test Facility laboratory-scale pilot project, Phase A (1987 – 1991)(1), and the subsequent commercialscale pilot, Phase B (1991 – present)(2). Since then, a large number of commercial SAGD projects have emulated their success. The current trend in operating philosophy is towards low-pressure SAGD: LPSAGD. This is based on the fact that at lower pressures, a larger percentage of steam's total heat is latent heat. Attractiveness of Low-Pressure SAGD SAGD Process In SAGD, most of the heat transferred to the cold oil sands formation is by the condensation of steam into the periphery of the steam chamber. The latent heat released from the steam is transferred to the colder formation mainly by conduction. Therefore, along the slopes of the steam chamber, the predominant flow of condensed steam (i.e. hot water) and mobilized hot bitumen is perpendicular to the direction of conductive heat flow. Steam quality is the mass fraction of water converted from liquid to steam. In SAGD, the injection of less than 100% quality steam is counterproductive, since the injected liquid water fraction just falls from the injector well to the producer well under gravitational forces within the isobaric steam chamber. This adds to the water recycling costs while contributing neither to the release of energy to the formation nor to bitumen recovery. Steam Properties The energy in steam at constant pressure consists of sensible heat and latent heat. The sensible heat is the energy required to raise the temperature of the water from an initial source temperature to the steam temperature; the latent heat is the energy required for the phase change from that hot water to steam. It is this latent heat that provides the dominant source of heat for the SAGD process. While the enthalpy of steam over the pressure range of 1,000 to 3,500 kPa is relatively uniform (see Figures 1 and 2), at lower pressures the proportion of heat as latent heat is higher. Since latent heat is the dominant form of heat transfer to the formation, one can see the attraction of low-pressure injection, solely from a steam energy viewpoint.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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