MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220702495 · doi:10.2118/209589-pa

A Comparison between Klinkenberg and Maxwell-Stefan Formulations to Model Tight Condensate Formations

2022· article· en· W4220702495 on OpenAlexaff
Carla Jordana Sena Santiago, Apostolos Kantzas

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)Saturation (graph theory)MechanicsThermodynamicsPhysicsChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Cyclic solvent (gas) injection is an efficient recovery method for condensate reservoirs. However, in tight, unconventional formations, the added complexity of low permeability results in more physics at play, beyond the widely used Darcy model for conventional reservoirs. In this work, a rigorous mass transfer model is implemented considering the real gas version of the Maxwell-Stefan formulation to evaluate cyclic injection schemes in tight condensate reservoirs. This model is then compared to the more widespread used Klinkenberg formulation, which does not include molecular diffusion. An evaluation is performed to check if a simplified formulation can be used to provide reasonable results in modeling production and enhanced recovery in tight condensate formations. Verification of the implemented equations is performed using experiments (Maxwell-Stefan model) and a commercial reservoir simulator (Klinkenberg model). Furthermore, the cell length used for the numerical studies is selected based on a sensitivity study to evaluate how numerical dispersion impacts recovery factor and liquid saturation for different cell sizes. By comparing the Klinkenberg model with different tangential momentum accommodation coefficient (TMAC) values to the Maxwell-Stefan model during primary production, it is possible to select a value of TMAC that can match closely the recovery values of lighter components when using the Maxwell-Stefan equations. However, for heavier hydrocarbon fractions, difference in recovery is more accentuated owing to increased molecule size (more molecular friction). This results in differences in condensate yield during primary production that may be relevant in a field scale. In the cyclic injection scheme, the importance of accounting for frictional effects between molecules is demonstrated using the Maxwell-Stefan formulation. In this case, molecular diffusion fluxes are influenced by high composition gradients. This results in differences between the Maxwell-Stefan and Klinkenberg models in terms of gas stored and hydrocarbon produced during cyclic injection simulations. Furthermore, a sensitivity study on operational parameters in the cyclic injection stage demonstrated that increasing the length of production cycles may be more beneficial than increasing the length of injection or soaking cycles. For the simulations in this study, the gas is injected above the dewpoint and pressure diffusivity is at least one order of magnitude higher than the other physics present in the process. Therefore, increasing the length of production cycles allows for recovery of heavier hydrocarbon fractions that remain in the gas phase. In this work, it is demonstrated that using a rigorous mass transfer formulation, such as the Maxwell-Stefan equations, can provide more information on a per component basis when evaluating cyclic injection schemes in tight condensate reservoirs.

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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207