MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314941311 · doi:10.2118/174489-ms

Chemical Additives and Foam to Enhance SAGD Performance

2015· article· en· W2314941311 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesCMG Reservoir Simulation Foundation
KeywordsEmulsionSurface tensionPetroleum engineeringSeparator (oil production)Residual oilMaterials scienceEnhanced oil recoveryOil dropletChemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) is known as the main technology to tackle the exploitation of heavy oil and oil sand resources in Alberta. The oil industry seems to be well-educated today about SAGD's challenges and opportunities. Enhancing the efficiency of SAGD operations remains an area of investigation as it is tied to economic and environmental measures. Use of chemical additives and foam with SAGD is a strategy proposed on this account. Foam is dispersion of gas in a continuous water phase with thin films (lamella), acting as a separator. Given its sensitivity to oil distribution, foam tends to reside in higher permeability layers with less residual oil. Thermally stable surfactants are essential to maintain the foam life because surfactants stabilize lamella by decreasing the water-gas interfacial tension. Adding surfactants also lowers the interfacial tension at the water-oil interface and further produces water in oil or oil in water emulsion. In situ emulsion generation is thus another active mechanism that is involved as a result of surfactants presence. Due to the above properties, steam movement is hindered, and gravity override is consequently limited, thereby resulting in high injection pressure that thoroughly displaces oil. Also, foam injection is conducive for blocking thief zones and decreasing channeling. In terms of emulsification, oil in water emulsion flow decreases water permeability created by emulsion droplets entrapment in throats, transferring the injection flow into poorly exploited areas. More trapped oil is mobilized by interfacial tension drop. The existence of water in oil emulsion contributes to heat transfer because the generation reaction is exothermic. All mechanisms mentioned are incorporated to illustrate CAFA-SAGD (chemical additives and foam assisted SAGD) performance and compare it with SAGD in both homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs using CMG® STARS. The reservoir under study is analyzed with low permeability layers, top water, bottom water, and lean zones for the heterogeneous case. The surfactants properties and foamibility are considered through appropriate reactions introduced into the simulator. The phase behavior for emulsification regulates different relative permeability regimes into the oil flow. We find that adding additives contributes to higher production and leads to less steam consumed. This study incorporates viscosity reduction, mobility control, interfacial tension drop, and emulsification mechanisms to present the effects of chemical additives and foam towards SAGD performance. Our results indicate that using additives with SAGD can maintain a uniform steam chamber growth while reducing the heat loss to overburden. It has a significant long-term oil production capability.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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