Bitumen Recovery Performance of SAGD and Butane- and Hexane-Aided SAGD in the Presence of Shale Barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil and gas formations are commonly found to be heterogeneous, and one of the most common occurrences of reservoir heterogeneity is the presence of shale barriers. Shale barriers typically have very low permeability and high initial water saturation. Due to low permeability, these barriers obstruct the oil drainage path, specifically in thermal recovery methods such as steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). In addition to flow assistance, they also lead to heat losses due to absorption by the high initial water saturation. Expanding solvent steam-assisted gravity drainage (ES-SAGD) is a hybrid technique comprising solvent co-injection along with steam. Solvent being in the vapor phase can potentially overcome the restricted path due to the presence of shale barriers. This paper presents a numerical simulation study on comparison between SAGD and ES-SAGD in the presence of shale barriers. SAGD and ES-SAGD with hexane and butane are numerically simulated for 240 lognormally generated shale realizations. First, both recovery processes are analyzed over the whole simulation period. Additionally, they have also been evaluated at multiple cumulative steam oil ratio cut-offs at 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5. Transition points are defined and explained to cluster the shale density/fractions based on similar behaviors. It was shown that the oil that cannot be mobilized and produced by SAGD because shale barriers can be reached by the vaporized solvent through tortuous paths and recovered. Also, thermal losses are reduced because of lower steam chamber temperature. This led to efficient results for ES-SAGD over SAGD in heterogeneous formations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".