Solvent Induced Oil Viscosity Reduction and Its Effect on Waterflood Recovery Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WAG process is one of the techniques used for reducing gas consumption, enhancing recovery factor and achieving better profile control of displacing fluids. Recovery efficiency due to reduction of oil viscosity, simulating a WAG process, in a wide range of reservoir permeability and water injection rate was investigated. Gas viscosity reduction by miscible gas or solvent injection is mimicked by progressive dilution of a medium density crude oil with a mixture of hydrocarbon solvent. The porous media used in this study consists of a set of water wet sandstone core plugs of low to medium permeability. The experimental findings show that reduced oil viscosity has no correlation with recovery efficiency, in the normal flood velocity regime. However, in the higher flood velocity regime, recovery efficiency reduces with increasing oil viscosity, only for higher permeability cores, which is attributed to micro-heterogeneity within pore geometry. The study suggests that the additional oil recovery during miscible gas injection, is mainly contributed by the swelling factor of oil which results in increased oil saturation, higher reservoir pressure and increased relative permeability of oil in addition to the contribution from lower interfacial tension and very little, if any due to oil viscosity reduction. Key words: WAG process; Recovery efficiency; Oil viscosity
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".