MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587411043 · doi:10.2118/184972-ms

Learnings from the Grand Rapids Field Trial of Tubing Deployed Inflow Control Devices for SAGD Application

2017· article· en· W2587411043 on OpenAlex
Jarrett Dragani, K. T. Drover, X. C. Zhang

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)
FundersCenovus Energy
KeywordsInflowField trialPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Oil fieldWellboreField (mathematics)Environmental scienceEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Field trials of tubing deployed Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) were conducted at the Grand Rapids SAGD Pilot from 2014 to 2016. The objective of the trials were to evaluate the flow performance of ICDs in a tubing deployed completion and assess improvements to thermal conformance. Key performance metrics were established to monitor changes in well performance, including production rates, thermal conformance, steam production and Steam to Oil Ratio (SOR). A comprehensive study was undertaken after the trials concluded. Multiple approachs were taken including analytical representations and simulations. The purpose of the study was to improve understanding of the underlying physics that govern flow and thermodynamic behavior of ICDs. The study specifically addressed restriction effects for various inflow conditions, steam flashing effects through the devices and heat exchange effects associated with the completion design. The results of the study identify some design principles that may be used for future application of ICDs in SAGD wells. Well Pairs 1 and 2 at the Grand Rapids Pilot project were used to test different ICD completions in a SAGD well pair. The Well Pair 1 field trial began first and lasted seven months. Learnings from the Well Pair 1 trial were extended to the Well Pair 2 trial which lasted 18 months. Flowing and shut-in temperature profiles were collected to understand near wellbore conditions and 4D seismic was used to ascertain changes to thermal conformance in the reservoir. Analytical and numerical models were developed to match field observations from the trial. Results from the field trial provided unique learnings with respect to the benefits that tubing deployed ICD systems may provide for SAGD wells. Changes in conformance and temperature distribution in the lateral sections were noted with little to no uplifts in oil rates or SOR. Once the trials were complete, all ICDs were removed from both well pairs and subject to visual inspections. Thereafter, a sample population of devices underwent a series of tests to evaluate mechanical integrity. The tests also characterized any changes to ICD flow relationships before and after the trial. Inspections of the devices post-operation provided crucial learnings on the mechanical integrity of such systems.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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