MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973495020 · doi:10.2118/195869-ms

Characterization of Flow Control Device Performance with Distributed Fiber-Optic Sensors

2019· article· en· W2973495020 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Banack, Lyle H. Burke, Daniel Booy, Emeka C. Chineme, Marty Lastiwka, Fernando Gaviria, J. D. Ortiz, Javier Sanmiguel, Ayshnoor Dewji

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)Suncor Energy (Canada)Cenovus Energy (Canada)Devon Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflowOutflowOptical fiberFiber optic sensorPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is becoming common to install inflow control devices (ICDs) along steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) production liners to enhance temperature conformance and accelerate depletion. Additionally, some operators advocate the installation of similar outflow control devices (OCDs) along the injection well of the SAGD well pair. Collectively, these inflow and outflow devices are often referred to as FCDs. Industry adoption of flow control devices (FCDs) has increased, and several devices are commercially available for use in SAGD. In an effort to optimize FCD design and selection, a joint industry partnership (JIP) was formed (Vachon et al. 2015) and flow loop testing conducted to establish FCD performance curves and erosion tolerance over a wide range of pressure, temperature, and steam quality (SQ) consistent with a typical SAGD well environment. In conjunction with flow loop testing, several full-scale FCD deployments were completed at the JIP fields, including pilot wells at the production company's SAGD facility, which were logged with fiber-optic technology. Fiber-optic-based instrumentation was deployed within FCD-equipped wells using permanently installed coiled tubing. Well architecture design changes to a typical completion were not required because fiber-optic sensors are used for most non-FCD wells to collect distributed temperature sensing (DTS) data. Although DTS is a common tool for optimizing SAGD production, it has certain limitations; specifically, temperature changes along production wells do not typically allow a detailed definition or quantification of the inflow distribution along the wellbore. In addition to DTS, distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) was periodically performed on the FCD wells. DAS logging of SAGD producers has several potential uses, including flow profiling, steam breakthrough and/or noncondensable gas (NCG) detection, multiphase flow characterization, electric submersible pump (ESP) performance, completion failure analysis, and four-dimensional seismic analysis. Although FCD characterization with DAS appears promising, a knowledge gap exists as to how to move beyond qualitative analysis to more quantitative analysis of FCD performance and the lateral emulsion inflow distribution. Pending satisfactory results, DAS logging on active wells can potentially be completed to accelerate improvements of SAGD FCD performance and design as well as increase the efficiency of SAGD recovery through improved steam/oil ratio (SOR) and an associated reduction in greenhouse gases. This paper describes piloting the collection and analysis of DTS and DAS data to help improve understanding of SAGD inflow distribution. Logs were performed on multiple wells during stable and transient flowing conditions. Early surveillance demonstrated suitability and limitations of fiber-optic-based logging to validate FCD performance in active wells. In addition to field logging, acoustic recording using JIP flow loop testing was completed with accelerometers, geophones, and fiber-optic cables during FCD characterization. The goal was to cross reference the acquired acoustic signals for quantification of flow at devices and validation of performance. An overview of the JIP flow loop FCD acoustic characterization program is described.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207