MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000317902 · doi:10.2118/200473-pa

Experimental Correlations for the Performance and Aperture Selection of Wire-Wrapped Screens in Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Production Wells

2020· article· en· W3000317902 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Production & Operations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageSizingPetroleum engineeringParametric statisticsVolumetric flow rateAperture (computer memory)Flow (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)EngineeringMechanicsEnvironmental scienceOil sandsMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Wire-wrapped screens (WWSs) are one of the most-commonly used devices by steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) operators because of the capacity to control plugging and improve flow performance. WWSs offer high open-to-flow area (OFA) (6 to 18%) that allow a high release of fines, hence, less pore plugging and accumulation at the near-screen zone. Over the years, several criteria have been proposed for the selection of aperture sizes on the basis of different industrial contexts and laboratory experiments. Generally, existing aperture-sizing recommendations include only a single point of the particle-size distribution (PSD). Operators and academics rely on sand-control testing to evaluate the performance of sand-control devices (SCDs). Scaled laboratory testing provides a straightforward tool to understand the role of flow rate, flowing phases, fluid properties, stresses, and screen specifications on sand retention and flow impairment. This study employs large-scale prepacked sand-retention tests (SRTs) to experimentally assess the performance of WWSs under variable single-phase and multiphase conditions. The experimental results and parametric trends are used to formulate a set of empirical equations that describe the response of the WWS. Several PSD classes with various fines content and particle size are tested to evaluate a broad range of PSDs. Operational procedures include the coinjection of gas, brine, and oil to emulate aggressive conditions during steam-breakthrough events. The experimental investigation leads to the formulation of predictive correlations. Additional PSDs were prepared to verify the adequacy of the proposed equations. The results show that sanding modes are both flow-rate and flowing-phase dependent. Moreover, the severity or intensity of producing sand is greatly influenced by the ratio of grain size to aperture size and the ability to form stable bridges. During gas and multiphase flow, a dramatic amount of sanding was observed for wider apertures caused by high multiphase flow velocities. However, liquid stages displayed less-intense transient behaviors. Remarkably, WWSs rendered an excellent flow performance even for low-quality sands and narrow apertures. Although further and more complete testing is required, empirical correlations showed good agreement with experimental results.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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