MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989879967 · doi:10.2118/03-07-02

Viscosity Determination of Heavy Oil and Bitumen Using NMR Relaxometry

2003· article· en· W1989879967 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Bryan, Apostolos Kantzas, K. Mirotchnik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsViscosityAsphaltViscosity indexRelaxometryOil viscosityOil fieldRelaxation (psychology)Relative viscosityChemistryPetroleum engineeringThermodynamicsMaterials scienceGeologyPhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Knowledge of oil viscosity is important when estimating hydrocarbon reserves and evaluating the potential for waterflooding or EOR processes. This information is especially important in heavy oil and bitumen, as viscosity is usually the major impediment to recovery of these reserves. As oil viscosity increases, obtaining a laboratory measurement is difficult and prone to error, and viscosities measured in the lab may not be representative of field conditions. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is therefore presented as an attractive alternative method for determining oil viscosity. Several correlations already exist for determining oil viscosity using NMR. Some of these correlations compare the geometric mean T2 relaxation time to oil viscosity, while others relate viscosity to the apparent hydrogen index. This paper examines these different models on a suite of conventional and heavy oil samples. It is concluded that none of the existing models can accurately predict oil viscosity for both conventional and heavy oils, especially for oils with viscosity higher than 20,000 cP. All the measured oil samples show a correlation between oil viscosity and the geometric mean T2 relaxation time, and also between viscosity and relative hydrogen index. This is consistent with what other experimenters have noticed. An empirical model is developed, correlating oil viscosity to both of these parameters. Unlike previous models, this model can accurately predict oil viscosity for both conventional and heavy oil. The wider range of this model makes it useful for laboratory analysis of oil viscosity using NMR. If the results of this model can be applied to in situ oils, NMR can be used as a logging tool to characterize heavy oil and bitumen formations. The model presented in this paper is the first step towards successfully predicting viscosity in situ. Introduction Determination of oil viscosity is extremely important to the development of any potential oil reservoir. If waterflooding is being considered as a recovery scheme, the mobility ratio between oil and water will have a strong effect on the macroscopic sweep efficiency of the waterflood. Likewise, when considering possible EOR schemes, oil viscosity is one of the most serious impediments to the success of these schemes. Oil viscosity is also a required input parameter for reservoir simulation and well testing. In heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, the high oil viscosity is often the limiting factor to efficient oil recovery. Waterflooding cannot be used in these reservoirs, due to the adverse mobility ratio between oil and water. The oil is so much more viscous than water that injected water will move through the oil in the form of "viscous fingers," which lead to early water breakthrough and poor sweep efficiency. If attempting a miscible solvent or gas flood, knowledge of oil viscosity is necessary for estimating the efficiency of the flood. Due to the negative effects of the adverse mobility ratio, viscosity reduction is the main focus of EOR schemes in heavy oil reservoirs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207