Design of Optimal Operational Parameters for Steam-Alternating-Solvent Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs - A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Steam Alternating Solvent (SAS) process has been proposed and studied in recent years as a new auspicious alternative to the conventional thermal (steam-based) bitumen recovery process. The SAS process incorporates steam and solvent (e.g. propane) cycles injected alternatively using the same configuration as the Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage (SAGD) process. The SAS process offers many advantages, including lower capital and operational cost, as well as a reduction in water usage and lower Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. On the other hand, one of the main challenges of this relatively new process is the influence of uncertain reservoir heterogeneity distribution, such as shale barriers, on production behaviour. Many complex physical mechanisms, including heat transfer, fluid flows, and mass transfer, must be coupled. A proper design and selection of the operational parameters must consider several conflicting objectives. This work aims to develop a hybrid multi-objective optimization (MOO) framework for determining a set of Pareto-optimal SAS operational parameters under a variety of heterogeneity scenarios. First, a 2-D homogeneous reservoir model is constructed based on typical Cold lake reservoir properties in Alberta, Canada. The homogeneous model is used to establish a base scenario. Second, different shale barrier configurations with varying proportions, lengths, and locations are incorporated. Third, a detailed sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the most impactful parameters or decision variables. Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis, several objective functions are formulated (e.g., minimizing energy and solvent usage). Fourth, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is applied to generate a set of proxy models to approximate the non-linear relationship between the decision variables and the objective functions and to reduce the overall computational time. Finally, three Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) are applied to search and compare the optimal sets of decision parameters. The study showed that the SAS process is sensitive to the shale barrier distribution, and that impact is strongly dependent on the location and length of a specific shale barrier. When a shale barrier is located near the injector well, pressure and temperature may build up in the near-well area, preventing additional steam and solvent be injected and, consequently, reducing the oil production. Operational constraints, such as bottom-hole pressure, steam trap criterion, and bottom-hole gas rate in the producer, are among various critical decision variables examined in this study. A key conclusion is that the optimal operating strategy should depend on the underlying heterogeneity. Although this notion has been alluded to in other previous steam- or solvent-based studies, this paper is the first to utilize a MOO framework for systematically determining a specific optimal strategy for each heterogeneity scenario. With the advancement of continuous downhole fibre-optic monitoring, the outcomes can potentially be integrated into other real-time reservoir characterization and optimization work-flows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".