Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solvent-additive processes (SAP) are a promising, but challenging technology. Perhaps the biggest challenge from an engineering point of view, is that simulators probably work some of the time, but not all of the time; and there is no information about where the line between occurs, or what the correct answer should be, after the line is crossed. Other serious problems are the many degrees of freedom in SAP process design, and the non-linear relationships between process inputs and economic results. There are too many possible designs to try randomly for even a single reservoir, and there is limited theory to interpolate or scale available experimental data. This paper attempts to assemble some known pieces of the puzzle, and to explore how they may fit together to explain and predict SAP performance characteristics First, some familiar PVT relationships are presented, with examples using temperature as the independent variable. This helps to clarify the choice of solvent, as a function of reservoir pressure, and also to understand the effect of the increasing solvent "dose". It is shown that SAP will create a double front, one where the water is condensed, and a second where the solvent is absorbed by, and drains with, the oil. A vapor blanket separates the two fronts. Secondly, simple estimates are given for the temperature distribution in the vapor blanket (i.e. solvent-active zone). Together with PVT data for the same pressure, these allow the thickness of a vapor blanket to be estimated. Finally, SAP mass transport limits are considered, by observing that the second front essentially constitutes VAPEX. The Butler-Mokrys theory is discussed, in view of its failure to predict certain experimental results; it is argued that this results from neglect of capillary pressure effects, which in fact are dominant at the front. A purely empirical correlation by Nenniger is introduced, which can be rearranged to predict the maximum solvent speed, also as a function of temperature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".