Numerical Study and Economic Evaluation of SAGD Wind-Down Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At a certain point in a SAGD operation, it is no longer economic to continue steam injection when the steam-oil ratio (SOR) becomes too high. A less energy intensive gas injection process following the SAGD process can prolong oil production by using the energy in-place. Numerical studies of the injection of noncondensable gas, and mixture of steam and noncondensable gas following a SAGD operation were conducted using the CMG's STARS reservoir simulator. The simulation results suggest that after 3 to 5 years of SAGD operation, when three quarters of the targeted reservoir is hot, it is appropriate to start a wind-down process. Injecting non-condensable gas results in a much lower production cost compared to continued steam injection; however, the oil production is reduced. Coinjection of steam with gas produces more oil than the gas-only injection process without substantially increasing production cost. This is probably the desired wind-down process. Optimization is needed for the coinjection process. The choice of non-condensable gas depends on the cost and availability. Introduction The huge heavy oil and bitumen resources in Western Canada have motivated efforts to develop suitable recovery processes. One of the results of these efforts is the Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage (SAGD) process1, which was proposed 20 years ago. The process utilizes horizontal wells and steam injection process. The slow gravity drainage is compensated for by using long horizontal wells, resulting in a reasonable production rate. In addition, the overall recovery rate may be as high as 70% of the original oil-in-place (OOIP). Much research has been conducted on the process in order to obtain a better understanding of the process under various reservoir conditions, to improve the accuracy on performance prediction, and to solve operational problems. After the process was pilot tested in AOSTRA's Underground Test Facility (UTF) and showed great promise2,3, SAGD has been regarded as one of the leading in-situ recovery processes for heavy oil and bitumen resources. Many SAGD projects are in operation, under construction, or in the planning stages in Western Canada. In the SAGD process, as the steam chamber grows, oil is gradually recovered, accompanied by an increasing steam-oil ratio. At a certain point, it is no longer economic to continue steam injection; however, the reservoir is still hot, and the energy in-place can be utilized. Non-condensable gas (NCG) or mixture of NCG and steam injection has been proposed as a wind-down process. A less energy-intensive gas injection process may maintain reservoir pressure, utilize the energy inplace, and prolong oil production. The purpose of this study is to evaluate various possible SAGD wind-down processes, and to find the appropriate time for starting a wind-down process. Using the reservoir simulator, STARS (Computer Modelling Group Ltd.), wind-down processes of the injection of NCG, and mixture of steam and NCG were numerically investigated. It was found that injecting NCG produces a considerable amount of oil. Although the oil production is lower than that of a steam-only injection process, the economics are greatly improved.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".