MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489794998 · doi:10.2118/03-01-05

Numerical Study and Economic Evaluation of SAGD Wind-Down Methods

2003· article· en· W2489794998 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Taiwan University
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess (computing)Fossil fuelProduction (economics)Enhanced oil recoveryWaste managementEngineeringOil sandsAsphaltMaterials scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At a certain point in a SAGD operation, it is no longer economic to continue steam injection when the steam-oil ratio (SOR) becomes too high. A less energy intensive gas injection process following the SAGD process can prolong oil production by using the energy in place. Numerical studies of the injection of non-condensable gas, and a mixture of steam and non-condensable gas following a SAGD operation, were conducted using the CMG's STARS reservoir simulator. The simulation results suggest that, after three to five years of SAGD operation, when three quarters of the targeted reservoir is hot, it is appropriate to start a wind-down process. Injecting non-condensable gas results in a much lower production cost compared to continued steam injection; however, the oil production is reduced. Coinjection of steam with gas produces more oil than the gas-only injection process without substantially increasing the production cost. This is probably the desired wind-down process. Optimization is needed for the co-injection process. The choice of non-condensable gas depends on the cost and availability. Introduction The huge heavy oil and bitumen resources in Western Canada have motivated efforts to develop suitable recovery processes. One of the results of these efforts is the Steam-Assisted Gravity- Drainage (SAGD) process(1), which was proposed 20 years ago. The process utilizes horizontal wells and steam injection. The relatively slower gravity drainage is compensated for by using long horizontal wells, resulting in an economic production rate. In addition, the overall recovery may be as high as 70% of the original oil-in-place (OOIP). Much research has been conducted on the process in order to obtain a better understanding of the process under various reservoir conditions, to improve the accuracy on performance prediction, and to solve operational problems. After the process was pilot tested in AOSTRA's Underground Test Facility (UTF) and showed great promise(2, 3), SAGD has been regarded as one of the leading in situ recovery processes for heavy oil and bitumen resources. Many SAGD projects are in operation, under construction, or in the planning stages in Western Canada. In the SAGD process, as the steam chamber grows, oil is gradually recovered, accompanied by an increasing steam-oil ratio. At a certain point, it is no longer economic to continue steam injection; however, the reservoir is still hot, and the energy in place can be utilized. Non-condensable gas (NCG) or a mixture of NCG and steam injection has been proposed as a wind-down process. A less energy-intensive gas injection process may maintain reservoir pressure, utilize the energy in place, and prolong oil production. Such a process has been field tested at the former UTF B patterns, and good results have been reported(8). The purpose of this study is to evaluate various possible SAGD wind-down processes, and to find the appropriate time for starting a wind-down process. Using the reservoir simulator, STARS (Computer Modelling Group Ltd.), wind-down processes of the injection of NCG, and mixture of steam, and NCG were numerically investigated. It was found that the wind-down process could produce a considerable amount of oil.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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