MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970462198 · doi:10.2118/157905-ms

Foamy Oil Behaviour in Solvent Based Production Processes

2012· article· en· W1970462198 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

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolventMicromodelNucleationSupersaturationEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceChemical engineeringOil productionChemistryOrganic chemistryGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foamy oils, generated during cold production, have also been detected in solvent based recovery processes. Understanding the foamy oil mechanism is key to determining how oil is produced in processes such as Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI). Visual observations of solvent exsolving from solution during depressurization were performed to gain a better understanding of these processes. Heavy oil saturated with CO2, CH4, C3H8 and a combination of CO2 and C3H8 are examined in an etched glass micromodel. Three different expansion rates are examined. The results indicate that CO2 and CH4 show an extreme supersaturation. CO2 saturated oil produces more nucleation sites than CH4, C3H8 and a mixture of CO2 and C3H8. Approximately 8 times more nucleation sites were produced with CO2 than with CH4. With more nucleation sites, there is a greater potential for oil recovery with solution gas drive. The experiments conducted here provide a qualitative understanding of the foamy oil process and aid in the understanding of solvent based enhanced oil recovery mechanisms such as Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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