MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975764856 · doi:10.2118/165385-ms

An Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology as a Follow Up to Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand

2013· article· en· W1975764856 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHusky Energy (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOil sandsOverburdenOil in placePetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleumEnvironmental scienceSolventLight crude oilOil productionDistillationWater injection (oil production)HydrocarbonAsphaltGeologyWaste managementMaterials scienceChemistryMining engineeringChromatographyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lloydminster area that straddles Alberta and Saskatchewan border contains vast amounts of heavy oil deposits in thin unconsolidated formations. Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) has been successfully implemented in these reservoirs. However, primary recovery is still low averaging below 10%. How to economically recover the large amount of remaining oil in place is a challenge. Therefore, an effective follow up recovery process is required. Steam injection technologies cannot be widely applied because most of the Lloydminster heavy oil reservoirs are thin and the heat losses to overburden and under burden make the process uneconomic. Alternative solvent methods are not commercial yet due to uncertain oil recovery rates and low solvent recovery. Hybrid application of the aforementioned two technologies using hot water together with solvents could be an economic post CHOPS recovery process. The wormholes created during the primary recovery can be used to contact large reservoir volumes with hot water and solvent. This paper contains the results of hot water and solvent oil recovery experiments conducted in preserved heavy oil cores. Experimental work consisted of three phases. Cores were immersed in hot water in the first phase to pre-heat the formation. Next, cores were exposed to heptane as hydrocarbon solvent. Finally, cores were immersed in hot water again to recover the oil as well as the solvent. The ultimate oil recoveries varied between 42% and 88% OOIP and, the asphaltene precipitation varied between 2.5 wt% and 11.7 wt%. Experiments were also carried out with a distillate from Husky's Lloydminster upgrader used for heavy oil transportation in the pipelines. Better results were obtained if the distillate was used instead of the pure hydrocarbon solvent. It was observed that oil recovery at the end of the initial hot water injection phase due to thermal expansion and viscosity reduction was negligible compared to the ultimate recovery. However, the first phase serves to condition the reservoir for better diffusion in the second phase when the solvent is injected. The final phase of hot water injection causes the water to strongly imbibe into the matrix enhancing the oil and the solvent recovery.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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