A Practical Approach to the Use and Design of Flow Control Devices in SAGD
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past few years, an increasing number of operators in steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) in situ recovery of bitumen in the Alberta Oil Sands are becoming interested in the use of flow control devices (FCDs). Initial field trials by some operators of these devices have shown promise in improving steam chamber conformance, reducing incidences of steam breakthrough, high vapour production, and in addressing liner reliability concerns related to steam jetting. While the application of FCDs is well-established in the conventional oil and gas industry to control gas and water coning, there are still a number of questions on how to implement FCDs optimally in SAGD. One major difference in the application of FCDs in SAGD compared to the conventional oil and gas industry is the high temperature environment with steam and elevated erosion risk. The purpose of this paper is to present some practical considerations for the selection of FCDs and optimal completion FCD design for SAGD applications. In the first section, a discussion is presented on how to compare the performance of different flow control devices. Most devices have not been tested for SAGD, and there is a need for more comprehensive testing. The focus of the second section is on practical considerations for the installation of FCDs in a SAGD injection and production wells.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it