MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006545443 · doi:10.2118/170098-ms

A Critical Review of the Solvent-Based Heavy Oil Recovery Methods

2014· review· en· W2006545443 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Research CentreUniversity of Regina
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsSolventPetroleum engineeringAsphalteneEnvironmental scienceEnhanced oil recoveryProcess engineeringThermalPetroleumMaterials scienceComputer scienceChemistryGeologyThermodynamicsEngineeringOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal-based heavy oil recovery methods, which are exemplified by steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), have been successfully used in a number of field applications to enhance heavy oil recovery over three decades. However, there are several major technical issues associated with the thermal-based methods, such as large energy and water consumptions, extensive heat losses and expensive water treatment, as well as considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Thus the thermal-based methods are not suitable for many heavy oil reservoirs with thin pay zones, bottom water, gas caps, and low rock thermal conductivities due to economic constraints and environmental concerns. Alternatively, the solvent-based heavy oil recovery methods are considered. This paper provides a critical review of several solvent-based methods by conducting a comprehensive literature search of over 100 most recent and significant technical publications. First, the basic idea and technical development of each solvent-based heavy oil recovery method are briefly introduced. The advantages of solvent-based methods are stressed. Second, solvent-based methods are classified and each method is described. Third, a large number of experimental, theoretical and numerical studies of solvent-based methods are reviewed, from physical and theoretical modeling to numerical simulations. In particular, the heavy oil recovery mechanisms, phase behaviour and mass transfer of the heavy oil–solvent systems are examined in detail. A few important factors or major phenomena as well as their effects on the solvent-based methods are analyzed, which include the operating conditions (i.e., pressure and temperature), well configuration, solvent-induced asphaltene precipitation, interfacial tension (IFT), and viscous fingering. Most importantly, a total of six pilot tests or field applications of solvent-based methods, such as vapour extraction (VAPEX), liquid addition to steam to enhance recovery (LASER), and other hybrid steam–solvent processes, are evaluated. Finally, several major technical recommendations are made accordingly for future studies and developments of solvent-based heavy oil recovery methods and their potential variations. This updated technical review will help to better understand the solvent-based heavy oil recovery processes and guide a heavy oil producer to better design a solvent-based heavy oil recovery project.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.284 · 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