An Investigation into Enhanced Recovery under Solution Gas Drive in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Some of the heavy oil reservoirs in Western Canada and Venezuela show anomalously high primary recovery under solution gas drive process. Pressure decline rate in these reservoirs is low compared to that expected under solution gas drive in conventional oil reservoirs. Several theories have been proposed for these anomalous behaviors. The objective of this study is to examine one of the proposed theories, which suggests that gas mobility in heavy oil is low. In this study, gas mobility under solution gas drive is measured by performing depletion experiments. The depletion was carried out at four different rates. The Eclipse-100 Black oil simulator was used to match the experimental data. The direct results from the experiments show that the critical gas saturation is not very high. Thus, critical gas saturation cannot explain high recovery. However, it was found that the gas mobility in heavy oil is quite low, when compared to that expected in conventional oil. Experimental results indicated that higher rates of pressure drop resulted in higher super-saturation, higher critical gas saturation and lower relative permeability to gas. Physical explanation of the observed behavior is offered in light of the anomalous behavior of heavy oil reservoirs. An empirical model was developed to predict gas mobility, critical gas saturation and supersaturation as a function of depletion rate for the system studied.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".