Evaluation of Steam Circulation Strategies for SAGD Startup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The impact of steam quality, circulation rate and pressure difference between the well pair during SAGD initialization using steam circulation was explored through the use of numerical simulations employing a discretized wellbore model. These operating parameters appear to affect uniformity of reservoir heating, occurrence of steam breakthrough and time required to establish communication between the well pair. The simulation results indicate that, for the given tubing and liner sizes and reservoir properties, relatively lower circulation rates at high-steam quality are more favourable for faster initialization and development of uniform temperature between the horizontal well pair. At lower steam qualities, however, higher circulation rates appear more favourable. The use of high-steam quality in combination with high-circulation rates leads to slower rates of initialization, less uniform heating along the length of the wells and possibility of premature steam breakthrough at the heel. It was also found that having a higher steam quality in the lower well than in the upper well could lead to faster initialization and more uniform heating between the well pair. A small pressure difference, offsetting the natural hydraulic pressure (50 kPa), appears to be more favourable for faster and more uniform initialization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".