Field-Scale Compositional Simulation of a CO2 Flood in the Fractured Midale Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A stimulation test using electric heating was conducted on a single oil production well in the Schoonebeek reservoir in The Netherlands during 1989 and 1990. The performance of the test and its interpretation is described. The Bentheim reservoir sands are 31 m thick with a porosity of 0.3 and a permeability in the range 0.2 - 4 µm2; the oil has an in-situ viscosity at 160 mPa.s and is waxy with a cloud point very close to the reservoir temperature of 40 °C. The reservoir pressure of about 7000 kPa is supported by a strong edge aquifer. The objective of the test was to stimulate oil production with heat and, particularly, to melt wax that was suspected to be present either near the wellbore or uniformly throughout the reservoir. Prior to stimulation the oil production rate was 13 m3/d at a water cut of 35%. As the surface power dissipated was increased above 60 kW, the oil production rate increased abruptly to 30 m3/d with a bottomhole temperature in the range 54 to 60 °C; at higher power levels no further increase of production rate was observed. Analytical methods proved very useful for understanding the electric healing process, particularly for tracing the electric current flow path in the reservoir and for modelling the heat distribution and production response. Numerical simulations of the well's performance showed that the observed abrupt increase of oil production rate was compatible with the melting 01 wax at 60 °C and partial removal of a skin (of approximately 27) but not of a wax deposited uniformly throughout the reservoir. Introduction Though electrical heating has been used to stimulate well productivity al various times over the last 25 years, it is not widely applied. A lest of the stimulation method was recently completed on Well SCH-280 in the RW2-E area of the Schoonebeek oil reservoir of The Netherlands (see Figs. 1 and 2) by the Nederlandse Aardolle Maatschappij B. V. (NAM). In this paper we describe the properties of the Schoonebeek reservoirand the characteristics of Well SCH-280 and review the objectives, test programme and actual performance of the electric heating stimulation (EHS) test. In several respects, the information required to interpret the test unambiguously was not available. To circumvent these limitations, methods were developed for inferring the electric current flow path and heat distribution in the reservoir, Using both analytical and numerical simulation methods, a broadly consistent interpretation of the test was developed and this is described herein. FIELD PERFORMANCE OF OTHER ELECTRIC HEATING TESTS Over the last 25 years there have been a number of reports in the literature of planned or executed field tests of the electric heating process, mostly based on the ohmic dissipation of electric energy in the formation. Electrothermic Co., for example, stimulated four wells of the Little Tom field in South Texas. The reservoir there contains 8 - 12 °API gravity oil with a high pour point [1,2].
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".