MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001685874 · doi:10.2118/2003-059-ea

Measurement and Modelling of Asphaltene Flocculation From Athabasca Bitumen

2003· article· en· W2001685874 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Khashayar Rastegari, James S. Beck, William Y. Svrcek, Harvey W. Yarranton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSyncrude
KeywordsAsphaltAsphalteneFlocculationOil sandsPetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialEngineeringChemical engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Heavy crude oil production is increasing as conventional oil supplies are depleted. However, heavy oils are rich in asphaltenes, which can precipitate, flocculate, and deposit during transportation and processing. Current methods of treating the deposit are often only partially effective. In order to better mitigate asphaltene deposition, a better understanding of asphaltene precipitation and flocculation is required. This project focuses on the formation and flocculation of asphaltene particles in solutions of n-heptane and toluene at 23 °C and atmospheric pressure. Heptane and toluene were selected because toluene is a good solvent for asphaltenes whereas asphaltenes precipitate in heptane. Hence, mixtures with different proportions of precipitated asphaltenes could be investigated at different solvent conditions. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD Athabasca coker-feed bitumen was obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd. Toluene and n-heptane were obtained from Aldrich chemical Company with 99%+ purity. Asphaltenes were precipitated from the bitumen with the addition of n-heptane at a 40:1 volume ratio of heptane-to-bitumen and non-asphaltenic solids were removed by centrifugation. Details of the precipitation are provided elsewhere [7]. To prepare a solution of asphaltenes in heptane and toluene, the asphaltenes were first added to toluene and sonicated for 1 hr at 23 °C to ensure that all the asphaltene dissolved. Asphaltene precipitation was induced by the addition of n-heptane in 60:40 and 70:30 n-heptane: toluene volume ratios. Asphaltene concentrations of 0.05, 0.08, and 0.1 kg/m_ were considered. The growth of asphaltene floccs was observed over 6 hours using a Brinkmann 2010 particle size analyzer. The particle size distribution is determined from the time of transition of the particles (or flocs) through a laser [5]. Samples were placed in standard 1 cm × 1 cm square optical-glass cuvettes obtained from Hellma cells Inc. A three-speed magnetic stirrer was employed to disperse the asphaltene particles within the cuvette. FLOCCULATION MODEL The probability of flocculation is a combination of the probability of a collision (characterized by diffusion time, τdiff) and the probability of a collision resulting in flocculation (characterized by reaction time, τrxn). In well mixed systems, τdiffdiff < < τrxn and flocculation is reaction-limited. In this limit, particles may collide with each other numerous times before they actually react (flocculate). The problem can then be approached using classical rate equations of the form: Equation (1) (Available in full paper) where Ni denotes a floc consisting of i individual particles. Cluster-cluster addition is the dominant mechanism in reaction-controlled flocculation. Flocculation is opposed by fragmentation, which can be a combination of surface erosion and shattering [3]. For a monodisperse distribution of individual particles, the derivative with respect to time of the number concentration, nk, of flocs of diameter dk is then given by: Equation (2) (Available in full paper) where Fi, j, Si and Ei are the number of reactions per unit volume per unit time that result in flocculation, shattering or surface erosion processes, respectively. The reaction terms are defined as follows: Equation (3) (Available in full paper)

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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