MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987376236 · doi:10.2118/165528-ms

Efficiency of Solvent Retrieval during Steam-Over-Solvent Injection in Fractured Reservoirs (SOS-FR) Method: Core Scale Experimentation

2013· article· en· W1987376236 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSolventSteam-assisted gravity drainageSteam injectionDiluentBoiling pointPetroleum engineeringPhase (matter)Oil fieldDiffusionMatrix (chemical analysis)BoilingChemistryHeptaneWater injection (oil production)Materials scienceOil sandsChemical engineeringChromatographyGeologyAsphaltThermodynamicsComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sole injection of steam or solvent into heterogeneous reservoirs usually yields an inefficient recovery performance. The SOS- FR (Steam-Over-Solvent Injection in Fractured Reservoirs) method was suggested as a solution to improve the efficiency of heavy-oil/bitumen recovery from fractured carbonates and oil sands reservoirs after cold production (Al-Bahlani and Babadagli 2008). The method consists of three phases: Phase (1): Steam is injected at low temperatures to heat the matrix and condition the oil for subsequent solvent injection; Phase (2): solvent injection to dilute matrix oil by diffusion and enhance gravity drainage recovery rate, and; Phase (3): low temperature (around the boiling point of solvent) steam injection to retrieve the solvent diffused into matrix. Previously, we focused on the effectiveness of Phases (1) and (2) of the method (Al-Bahlani and Babadagli 2009a-b) and observed very positive responses at the field scale (Al-Bahlani and Babadagli 2010) with high ultimate recoveries. The efficiency of this process, however, is purely determined by the amount of solvent retrieved at the end of the process. This paper, therefore, focuses on Phase (3), which is done mainly for solvent retrieval. About twelve static core experiments were performed on water and oil-wet sandstones. After saturating the rock samples with different heavy-oils, they were immersed into different liquid solvents—hexane, heptane, decane, and diluent oil. Once the ultimate recovery was achieved by diffusion and gravity drainage [Phase (2)], the samples were exposed to different temperature hot-water [Phase (3)] and the amount of solvent retrieved was measured through volumetric and weight measurements, as well as refractometer readings. The retrieval of solvent diffused into matrix was mainly due to two reasons: (1) Evaporation of solvent at elevated temperature, and (2) imbibition of hot-water into rock (if oil-wet samples become more water-wet during Phase (2). The amount of solvent retrieved through these processes were determined and the efficiencies were analyzed for different parameters including rock wettability, solvent type, solvent-soaking period, different combinations of steam-solvent cycle, and temperature applied.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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