MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003742247 · doi:10.2118/02-03-04

Screening of Three Light-Oil Reservoirs for Application of Air Injection Process by Accelerating Rate Calorimetric and TG/PDSC Tests

2002· article· en· W2003742247 on OpenAlexafffund
Hemanta Sarma, Nintoku Yazawa, R.G. Moore, S.A. Metha, N.E. Okazawa, Helen A. Ferguson, M.G. Ursenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsAutoignition temperatureIsothermal processDrop (telecommunication)Arrhenius equationChemistryThermodynamicsExothermic reactionActivation energyAtmospheric temperature rangeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CombustionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A series of Accelerating Rate Calorimeter (ARC) and Thermo Gravimetric Pressurized Differential Scanning Calorimeter (TG/PDSC) tests was conducted on oil-rock systems from three light-oil reservoirs (Oils A, B and C) to screen and evaluate the potential of the air injection process. ARC tests helped determine, a priori, whether the test oils would autoignite under reservoir conditions of pressure and temperature. Also, the limits of the low temperature range were established and Arrhenius oxidation kinetics parameters were estimated. The goals of the TG/PDSC tests were to identify temperature ranges over which the oil reacted with oxygen in the injected air, and to determine the fraction of the sample responsible for the reactivity. ARC and TG/PDSC tests demonstrate that Oils A and C offer favourable exothermic behaviour in the low temperature range with lower activation energies and low orders of reactions?the conditions typically favouring autoignition. The presence of rock material lowered the ignition temperature, confirming its impact on O2 uptake. Oil A had a lower energy generation (ignition) temperature, and a stronger and smoother transition to the higher temperature region. Both oils responded favourably during isothermal aging with air as manifested by a drop in the initial self-heating temperature (a 15 °C drop for Oil A and a 10 °C drop for Oil C). The third oil, Oil B, showed unusual characteristics, with almost no impact of the core material on the starting temperature of the exotherm; rather, the core material appeared to have acted as a heat sink. Overall, Oil B needed a much higher activation energy to ignite, and its order of reactions was very high. Furthermore, it showed no response to isothermal aging, and hence, it is less likely to autoignite in the reservoir. esults revealed that ARC and TG/PDSC tests could be an effective tool to rank and study the oxidation characteristics in the low temperature range of the candidate oils. Also, it was observed that the oil composition and rock mineralogy are important factors affecting the type and rate of the oxidation reactions occurring in the low temperature range. Introduction The air injection process is now a proven and viable process in improving oil recovery from several light-oil reservoirs. As a result, it has generated much interest in recent years(1–5). Cheap and abundant, air is also touted as a possible alternative to highcost hydrocarbon and CO2 gases in certain circumstances or locations where water is scarce(6–10). Moore et al(11) suggest that in an air injection process in lightoil reservoirs, both oxygen addition and bond scission reactions take place. Oxygen addition reactions are believed to occur at temperatures between 100 °C and 150 °C. These reactions are characterized by heavier oxygenated hydrocarbon products. Bond scission reactions for light oils typically occur at temperatures in the 150 to 300 °C and the 350 to 700 °C range. These reactions produce carbon oxides, water (steam) and heat, which contribute significantly towards mobilizing oil.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207