MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966242343 · doi:10.2118/145231-ms

Foaminess and Viscosity Effects in Heavy Oil Flow

2011· article· en· W1966242343 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosityBubble pointRheologyReduced viscosityDispersion (optics)Relative viscosityBubblePorous mediumEnhanced oil recoveryLight crude oilViscosity indexMaterials scienceThermodynamicsTemperature dependence of liquid viscosityChemistryPorosityPetroleum engineeringMechanicsBase oilComposite materialGeologyPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foamy oil viscosity is a controversial topic among researchers as to what happens to the apparent oil viscosity when the dispersed gas bubbles start migrating with the oil. For conventional oils, below the true bubble point pressure, the oil viscosity increases as the gas freely evolves from the oil. For foamy oils, it has been suggested that the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersion remains relatively constant, or perhaps declines slightly, between the true bubble point and a characteristic lower pressure, called pseudo bubble point, which is the pressure at which the gas starts separating from the oil. Below this pressure, the viscosity increases, reaching the dead oil value at atmospheric pressure. However, it is a well known fact in dispersion rheology that the viscosity of dispersion is higher than the viscosity of the continuous phase. Therefore, the concept of foamy oil viscosity being lower than the oil viscosity is counterintuitive. The major difference here is the extreme viscosity of the base liquid phase for foamy oil and how this interacts with the gas phase in a porous medium. The reported results appear to be very oil specific in this area, and are also a very strong function of how rapidly pressure is depleted in a given system. It is also likely that the apparent viscosity for flow of foamy oil in porous media is not the true dispersion viscosity due to the size of dispersed bubbles being comparable to the pore sizes. This study aims to investigate this issue by measuring the foamy oil viscosity under varied conditions. The effect of several parameters, such as shear/flow rate, foaminess and gas volume fraction on foamy oil viscosity was experimentally evaluated. A slim tube packed with sand was used to measure the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersions. The results show that the apparent viscosity of foamy oils is considerably higher than the live oil viscosity. . The results obtained also showed that the presence of an added foaming agent had only a minor impact on the apparent viscosity of foamy oil, especially at higher expansion factors. Also, at the same expansion factor, the apparent viscosity was higher at higher flow rate. Overall, the presence of a foaming agent resulted in enhanced dispersed flow of gas, as evidenced from the size of bubbles being produced and the observed pressure fluctuations

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it