MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3075035668 · doi:10.2118/199940-pa

Mechanics of SAGD Efficiency Improvement Using Combination of Chemicals: An Experimental Analysis through 2D Visual Models

2020· article· en· W3075035668 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jingjing Huang, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageOil sandsResidual oilSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryProcess engineeringChemistryPulp and paper industryChemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceAsphaltEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is (and will be) a dominating method for in-situ recovery of heavy oil and bitumen in Canada. Its efficiency, however, has been a chronic problem due to the excess use of water and energy causing inflated costs. Solutions are needed to both maintain the production, especially at the late stages, and reduce the amount of steam. One method to improve efficiency is injection of chemicals with steam. This study addresses this problem by focusing on three critical aspects of SAGD: sweep improvement (faster and larger chamber growth), better displacement efficiency (lower residual oil), and reducing the amount of steam (lower steam/oil ratio and lowered steam temperature). By addressing these issues, we provide answers for the proper formulation of chemical blends, optimal injection strategies (continuous or slug), and the right time to introduce chemicals (beginning, midstream, or mature phase). The efficiency of a single chemical additive in recovery improvement is limited because it serves for only one of the mechanisms previously listed. For a better performance, blending chemicals with different functionalities was proposed in this study. Additives showing the highest microscopic oil displacement efficiency (heptane, Novelfroth® 190) and the highest areal sweep efficiency EA [LTS-18, silicon dioxide (SiO2) nanoparticle, Tween™ 80, deep eutectic solvent (DES) 11] in our previous studies were selected. Eleven different combinations of these six chemical additives were tested for different injection strategies, and the SAGD process was visualized on Hele-Shaw cells filled with heavy oil. The interaction between different chemical additives was determined by analyzing emulsification, wettability alteration, and the growth and shape of the steam chamber. The optimal formulation and ideal injection strategy were selected by analyzing ultimate EA, microscopic oil displacement efficiency, ultimate oil recovery, energy and water consumption, and the price of chemical additives. The interaction rule of combined chemical additives and their contribution to the recovery during SAGD were clarified, and the optimal injection strategies (best blends and proper time to introduce chemicals) were identified to provide a reference for chemical selection for field applications. This is a critical attempt to reduce the steam/oil ratio (particularly the amount of steam used) in SAGD applications, especially at mature stages.

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 score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207