MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980822650 · doi:10.2118/198535-ms

Acidic Steam Modeling and Simulation for Heavy Oil and Extra Heavy Oil Reservoirs

2019· article· en· W2980822650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Zolalemin, Karl D. Stephen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsAsphaltOverburdenOil reservesSteam-assisted gravity drainageSynthetic crudeUnconventional oilSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental sciencePetroleumGeologyOil in placeFossil fuelWaste managementMining engineeringArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Over the past three decades, the decline in reserves of conventional crude oil has led to the development of several methods in order to enhance oil recovery for heavy oil deposits. Globally, heavy oil accounts for approximately 50% of hydrocarbon volume in place (Ehlig-Economides et al., 2000). There exist sixteen major oil sands deposits all over the world. As a matter of fact, the two largest are the Athabasca oil sands in Northern Alberta and the Orionco - River deposit in Venezuela. By comparison, the Athabasca oil sands alone cover an area of more than 42000 km2, in which oil storage is more than all the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. It is found that only one sixth of over 1.7 trillion barrels of heavy oil are recoverable with current technologies. These technologies include mining, thermal recovery, cold production and etc. Mining only makes economic and engineering sense when the depth of overburden is less than about 75 meters. Hence, only about 10 - 20% of the oil sands can be mined. As a result, recovery of the remaining 80 - 90% of the oil sands depends on the so-called thermal-recovery process, which basically depends on using energy to produce energy. In order to begin to separate the heavy oil from the sand/carbonates, deposits have to be heated to lower the viscosity of the heavy oil. One of these thermal recovery methods is the Solvent Assisted Process (SAP) that appears tremendously successful, especially for bitumen. SAP process involves injection of solvent and steam in several wells. Even though the injector well and producer can be very close, the mechanism of SAP causes a growing steam saturated zone, known as the steam chamber, to expand gradually and eventually allow drainage from a very large volume. Both field and numerical simulation studies have demonstrated the success of SAP drainage. The prediction of SAP performance by numerical simulation is an integral component in the design and management of a SAP project. In this regard, the solvent is chosen to be Acid in this study. In order to inject steam with solvent (acid), two separate chambers of acid and steam are heated up to a certain degree on the surface. Steam only is injected into the well. The well is shut in for 2 hrs and then put on production in which acid is mixed with steam and injected together after cleanup period. Conventional reservoir modeling approach computes multiphase flow in porous media but generally does not take the geomechanical effects into account. Unfortunately, this assumption is not valid for oil sands, because of their high sensitivity on pore pressure and temperature variations but can be applied in carbonate formations.

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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207