MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231535699 · doi:10.2118/157784-ms

Upscaling Study of Vapour Extraction Process through Numerical Simulation

2012· article· en· W4231535699 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Suxin Xu, Fanhua Zeng, Gu Yongan, Kelvin D. Knorr

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)University of Regina
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Computer simulationExtraction (chemistry)Relative permeabilityMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyChromatographyEngineeringChemistrySimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vapour Extraction (VAPEX), a process to recover heavy oil by injecting vapourized solvent into a reservoir, has been extensively studied through small-scale 1-D and 2-D laboratory tests. Recently, a series of large-scale 3-D tests have been conducted by Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). In this study, 2-D tests were conducted under the same conditions as those for the 3-D tests; then, numerical simulation models were investigated to reduce the uncertainty in upscaling the results from 2-D tests to 3-D tests. This helps to better understand the uncertainty in predicting the field-scale VAPEX performance. Plover Lake heavy oil was used in the tests, and the sandpack permeability was about 4.4 Darcy. In each test, the initial waterflooding was conducted prior to the subsequent solvent injection. Then, a numerical model was established to simulate the 2-D test. History match of the 2-D test was conducted by tuning the uncertainties such as the relative permeability, capillary pressure, solubility, and the wall effect in sand-packing. Afterwards the tuned parameters were applied to predict the 3-D test performance. Through comparison of the predicted and experimental results in the 3-D test, the capability of predicting up-scaled VAPEX processes through numerical simulation was examined, and the differences between physical and numerical modeling were identified. The results show that the waterflooding performance can be successfully predicted, whereas the uncertainty in upscaling the VAPEX process is large. In the waterflooding period, the predicted oil recovery factor was 25.78% compared with 23.4% in the 3-D test. In the VAPEX process, the difference between the predicted and measured oil recovery factors was in the range of 0.75–25.14%, depending on the different combination of uncertain parameters. This fact indicates that different scales of physical modeling are required in order to reduce the uncertainties in predicting the field-scale VAPEX 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Heavy Oil Conference CanadaSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207