MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146669591 · doi:10.2118/163594-ms

Advanced Wellbore Simulation of Flow Control Devices With Feedback Control for Thermal Operations

2013· article· en· W2146669591 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionInflowPetroleum engineeringController (irrigation)Steam-assisted gravity drainageProcess (computing)PID controllerProcess controlInjection wellWellboreAnnulus (botany)Flow (mathematics)Well controlComputer scienceTemperature controlEngineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyMechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Events such as hydraulic gradients in the horizontal completion, geologic and fluid variations in the reservoir and well placement issues can produce very poor steam conformance in the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process. Operators have implemented many strategies in an effort to address the issue. Simultaneous injection in inner tubing and annulus space or dual-tubing completions are commonly used in SAGD wells to provide controllable injection and production from the heel and toe regions of the horizontal well pair but this does not guarantee both uniform and efficient performance. This paper presents a study of a hybrid of two technologies to improve both conformance and economics of this thermal process. Recent work suggests that using Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) feedback to control the steam injection can lead to improvements in SAGD performance and conformance. The feedback control is applied to each steam injection point in the horizontal well pair. Injection at these control points is regulated by a PID feedback controller monitoring temperature differences between injected and produced fluids in order to both enforce a specified subcool and to achieve uniform production along the entire length of the producer. PID feedback control can be practically and inexpensively implemented in the field with current technology. Inflow or injection control devices (ICDs) can also improve SAGD performance. ICDs (or FCDs) can be incorporated in the horizontal completion as restrictive elements to modify the pressure distribution along the length of the wellbore. Among other benefits, properly sized and distributed ICDs can create a more uniform flow profile along the horizontal section of the well, regardless of permeability, formation damage and wellbore location. Furthermore, ICDs on the producer can provide a self-regulating effect to prevent live steam from entering the sand control screen. This paper examines detailed wellbore simulations of a SAGD process in which wells are equipped with a combination of ICD completions and feedback control in order to (i) determine the physical mechanisms (including the dynamic flow paths inside the well and in the near wellbore region), and (ii) outline practical procedures to determine an improved ICD completion and feedback control design. A novel aspect of this work is the inclusion of a revised flow-regime-independent multiphase flow correlation that can predict the pressure drop in horizontal and near-horizontal wells. Results presented in this paper should aid reservoir simulation engineers in both the design and optimization of steam injection in a SAGD well pair.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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