MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3010957272 · doi:10.2118/199960-ms

Standalone Sand Control Evaluation: Developing a Large-Scale High Temperature Sand Retention Test Apparatus

2020· article· en· W3010957272 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vahidoddin Fattahpour, Morteza Roostaei, Mahdi Mahmoudi, Mohammad Soroush, Seyed Abolhassan Hosseini, Mark Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosityEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringOil sandsPressure dropMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceVolumetric flow rateInflowGeologyComposite materialAsphaltMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) recovery factors are low (typically 8%) and most of the oil is left behind in the formation. Canadian Natural Resources Limited (Canadian Natural) is pursuing alternatives to primary recovery and secondary post CHOPS Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to recover more of this stranded oil resource. Wire-wrapped screens were investigated, using a High-Pressure High Temperature Sand Retention Testing (HPHT-SRT) apparatus, for sand control and inflow performance in a CHOPS formation near Bonnyville, Alberta. A new HPHT-SRT apparatus was designed/commissioned to better understand the role of oil viscosity on the capability of the standalone sand control screen. The facility allows to control the temperature of the fluid flowing across the sand pack and sand control coupon at different pressure drops. Each test is performed at constant pressure drops up to 300 psi. The temperatures up to 85 °C were tested. Coupons of wire-wrapped screen with three aperture sizes (0.008″, 0.010″, and 0.012″) were tested. Canadian Natural provided oil sand cores and crude oil from the target formation for this testing. The results indicated a high dependency of the near screen flow performance on the temperature and oil viscosity. As the increase in temperature reduces the oil viscosity below 300 cP, the near screen pressure gradient falls 26% to 40% under constant pressure drop for different aperture sizes. As the screen aperture increases from 0.008″ to 0.012″, the flow rate increases up to 20% for the test stages at 85°C temperature and up to 162% for the test stages at 25°C, for the tested pressure drops. The results indicate that at higher viscosities, the aperture size is the dominant factor in screen flow performance where a slight increase in aperture increases the flow performance and reduces pressure drop. However, increasing the aperture size, up to 0.012″, led to an increase in the sanding over 0.20 lb per square feet of the screen (lb/sq.ft.), which exceeds the acceptable threshold of 0.12 to 0.15 lb/sq.ft. for typical SRTs. Based on the pressure drops and produced sand results, a 0.010″ aperture size was recommended for the target formation. This paper outlines the results of the experiments with a HPHT-SRT, which is developed to better assess the function of sand control design for heavy oil assets. This phase of the work mainly focused on better understanding the role of the oil viscosity on sand control performance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→