MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407199852 · doi:10.2118/180752-ms

In-Situ Reflux: An Improved In-Situ Recovery Method for Oil Sands

2016· article· en· W2407199852 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas G. Harding, Stefan Zanon, Muhammad Imran, Richard K. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)Nexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsSteam-assisted gravity drainageAsphaltPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionEnvironmental scienceCapital costWaste managementHeat transferEnhanced oil recoveryEnvironmental engineeringGeologyEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process is the only commercially proven in-situ recovery method for Athabasca oil sands but it is challenged by high capital and operating costs and project economics are very sensitive to oil price fluctuations. The SAGD process also uses large quantities of water and produces significant greenhouse gas emissions during steam generation. It has become important to develop lower cost and more environmentally sustainable in-situ recovery technology for Athabasca oil sands. In-situ reflux (ISR) is a new and lower cost alternative to SAGD that uses long electrical resistance heaters in horizontal wells to vaporize connate water to produce a rising steam chamber above the heater well. In ISR a relatively small amount of water or solvent may be injected to enhance heat transfer into the formation and assist in reducing bitumen viscosity. Steam condensate formed by the cooling of steam migrates downward along with heated bitumen but as these fluids approach the heater well and production conduit, the water is re-vaporized or refluxed while the oil continues its downward travel and is produced. SAGD-like horizontal well pairs are contemplated for ISR although it may be possible to operate single wells. Capital costs for ISR are much reduced compared to SAGD since there are no steam generators, only a small water treatment plant is needed and the required capacity of the production separation train is significantly reduced. Operating costs for ISR are also reduced compared to SAGD through elimination of surface and wellbore heat losses during energy transmission to the producing formation. Greater energy efficiency in ISR leads to lower carbon dioxide production and water requirements compared to SAGD. This paper presents a description of the ISR process, a comparison of the SAGD and ISR processes and the steps taken to assess the viability of ISR. The many possible applications of the ISR recovery process are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical ConferenceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207