MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981760659 · doi:10.2118/2002-007

Compositional Changes During Vapex (Vapour Extraction) Operations in Heavy Oil Pools

2002· article· en· W1981760659 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.K. Singhal, D. Fisher, Hok‐Sum Fung, Jon Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)Petroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste managementPulp and paper industryProcess engineeringChemistryChromatographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During Vapex (Vapour Extraction) operations for heavy oil recovery, a condensable solvent (such as propane or CO2) is injected into the reservoir via a horizontal injector and mobilized oil is drained via a horizontal producer placed directly underneath it. The solvent is chosen such that it is close to its dew point under reservoir conditions. Mixing with this solvent significantly reduces viscosity of the heavy oil. Theoretical treatments assume the oil to be 'black' i.e. no changes to the oil occur, other than viscosity reduction due to localized dissolution of the solvent. However, one observes several compositional changes during Vapex experiments in the laboratory, especially when working with conventional heavy oils such as those from the Lloydminster Area of Canada. Via physical model studies involving different heavy oils, it was seen that compositional changes occur in the oil being produced as well as, in the oil still resident within the model. These include solvent extraction of vaporizable components of the heavy oil, especially in the early stages of Vapex; subsequent produced oil was seen to be progressively heavier. These effects are more than compensated if de-asphalting of the oil occurs, as was observed in many laboratory Vapex experiments. Since the process is dynamic (unsteady state), oil quality and rates change with time. These changes may also affect price one obtains for the oil produced (function of API gravity and sulfur/ metal contents). Regarding deasphalting of the oil produced, it makes a lot of technical and economic sense to focus on ways of improving oil extraction rates down-hole by partially upgrading the oil in-situ and, on improving commodity quality in surface facilities once the heavy oil-solvent mixture has been produced, prior to its shipment to the refinery/ up-grader. Various aspects of compositional changes during Vapex are discussed using data from physical models; glass micro-models and MRI Images obtained during different Vapex experiments. Introduction In Vapex (Vapour Extraction) operations for heavy oil recovery, a condensable solvent (e.g. propane or CO2) is injected into the reservoir via a horizontal injector and mobilized oil is drained via a horizontal producer placed directly underneath it. The solvent is chosen such that it is close to its dew point under reservoir conditions and resulting solvent-oil mixture in vicinity of the vapour chamber, has significantly lower viscosity as compared to the native oil. The main driving mechanism is gravity to help drain the oil thus mobilized1 (having reduced viscosity) as shown in Figure 1. Theoretical treatments of Vapex assume the oil to be 'black', i.e. no changes to oil occur, other than viscosity reduction due to localized dissolution of the solvent. However, one observes several compositional changes occurring in the laboratory during Vapex, especially when working with conventional heavy oils such as those from the Lloydminster area. These include progressive extraction (into the injected solvent) of light hydrocarbon components of oil and asphaltene deposition. Upon contact with the solvent vapour, vaporizable components of oil are extracted into the vapour phase and/or transfer of some of the solvent into the oil phase occurs.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207