MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004534106 · doi:10.2118/137866-ms

Effect of Solution-Gas-Oil-Ratio on Performance of Solution Gas Drive in Foamy Heavy Oil Systems

2010· article· en· W2004534106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bashir Busahmin, Brij Maini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas oil ratioMethaneSaturation (graph theory)Carbon dioxidePetroleum engineeringChemistryEnhanced oil recoverySolubilityNatural gasMaterials scienceGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foamy oil flow occurs in primary depletion of heavy oil reservoirs as has been demonstrated in many laboratory experiments. It is thought to be an important recovery mechanism in several heavy oil reservoirs in Canada and Venezuela, which have shown higher recovery factors compared to what is expected from the normal solution gas drive theory. This work investigates the effects of several process parameters on oil production rate and recovery factor in foamy solution gas drive. The parameters examined included gas-oil-ratio (GOR), saturation pressure, the rate of pressure depletion and the drawdown pressure. GOR was varied independent of saturation pressure by using different gases, namely, methane, ethane and carbon-dioxide. Each foamy oil system was fully characterized by measuring gas oil ratio, oil compressibility, live oil viscosity, surface tension and foam stability. A total of 10 solution gas drive experiments were carried out in 2-meter long sand-pack equipped with several intermediate pressure taps using different solution gases and varying pressure decline rates. The results show that the foamy solution gas drive performance is affected by solution gas-oil-ratio in a counterintuitive manner. The oil recovery decreased with increasing gas oil ratio at fixed saturation pressure. At the same rate of pressure depletion, higher oil recovery was obtained with methane saturated oil than with carbon dioxide saturated oil. Ethane, which had the highest solubility, provided the lowest recovery factors. It was also found that the oil recovery factor did not decrease significantly when the saturation pressure was decreased from 3,500 kPa to 2,100 kPa. An analysis of all 10 depletion tests revealed that the most important factor that affects the oil recovery performance was the drawdown pressure, which was defined as the difference between the average sand-pack pressure and the production port pressure. Results obtained with different solution gases and widely varying depletion rates fell on the same trend line when the final recovery factor was plotted against the average drawdown pressure applied during the depletion.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207