MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2028116383 · doi:10.2118/06-03-02

A SARA-Based Model for Simulating the Pyrolysis Reactions That Occur in High-Temperature EOR Processes

2006· article· en· W2028116383 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineChemistry
ThématiquePetroleum Processing and Analysis
Établissements canadiensSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPyrolysisEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringCrackingPyrolytic carbonSecondary air injectionProcess (computing)Environmental scienceProcess engineeringChemistryComputer scienceWaste managementEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Although there is a need for forecasting the performance of enhanced oil recovery processes involving air injection, the capability to do so is still modest. One of the limitations to such forecasting is the lack of knowledge of the reaction chemistry, which leaves questions as to which or how many reactions are needed, and how to obtain values for the associated rate parameters. A model is presented to describe one of the three major categories of reaction that must be considered when simulating air injection: the heat-induced cracking of oil components. The model is well suited for the numerical simulation of air-injection EOR processes with commercial simulators. It is based on the measured rates of pyrolysis/coking reactions of purified SARA fractions separated from two very different sources: a Lloydminster heavy oil, and a Cold Lake bitumen. Most of the results for the two oils were fairly similar, which suggested that the model might apply readily to a broad range of oils. This paper also outlines a modified SARA analytical procedure that proved to be more reliable for this type of study than conventional methods of SARA analysis. Introduction One of the essential steps in the development of any enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project is the forecasting of oil production. Such forecasts are normally performed by numerical simulation. For any process that involves heating of part of the oil reservoir to high temperature, as often occurs for example in EOR by air injection, the effects of pyrolytic reactions upon the oil must be considered. However, only a moderate number of publications provide the information that reservoir simulators need for pyrolysis to be included. The first widely accepted simulation models(1, 2) of air-injection processes already recognized the need to use several separate fractions to represent the oil. The fractions were determined from distillation cuts. Coke, a solid hydrocarbon resulting from pyrolysis, was also included. This approach was refined(3), but soon alternative approaches appeared that divided the oil along the lines of solubility(4, 5) (separation of asphaltenes), or used lumped SARA (saturates, aromatics, resins, asphaltenes) fractions(6). Within a few years, these descriptions were followed with characterizations(7–13)that used each SARA fraction distinctly, in addition to coke and various gaseous components. A few of these studies(7, 8, 12, 13) were performed on individual SARA fractions that had been isolated from crude oil. Studying the chemical reactions in this fashion greatly improves the accuracy of the experimental measurements. Although the fractions have a modest effect(8, 13) upon the reaction rates and products of the other fractions in the oil, thermal analytical evidence(8, 14) indicates that this effect is small. Therefore, the advantages of studying the reactions of the isolated fractions instead of mixtures appear normally to outweigh the disadvantages. In addition, even fewer(7, 13) of the studies carried out the tests isothermally and in reactors from which the products could be recovered and examined; the others employed merely temperature-ramped thermal analysis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,237
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,227
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle