A New Understanding of an Old EOR Concept for <i>In Situ</i> Combustion Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The practice of in situ combustion has traditionally been based on the concept that extinction of the process occurs when the air flux falls below the level where bond scission reactions can no longer sustain the advance of the combustion front at the temperatures required for effective mobilization of the oil. Very important economic parameters such as sweep efficiency and design parameters such as air injection rate and spacing between the injection and the production wells are directly dependent on the level of the air flux at exhaustion. The most common method for estimating the minimum air flux is based on the work of Nelson and McNeil who proposed that for a radial burn the minimum combustion front velocity is 0.038 m per day (0.125 feet per day). Based on this minimum velocity and assuming air requirements falling in the 100 to 350 sm3/m3 range, the minimum air flux would be expected to fall in the range from 0.1 to 0.6 sm3/m2·h. This range of minimum air flux has a significant level of uncertainty in terms of both combustion front velocity and air requirement parameter. In an attempt to address this uncertainty, a conical combustion cell was constructed with the goal of directly determining the minimum flux for specific oils under conditions which are representative of a field scale operation. To date, tests involving core from a typical Athabasca Oil Sands reservoir have operated at air fluxes (based on the air injection rate and area at the downstream front location) of under 1 sm3/m2·h. This paper describes the nature of the combustion zone under this low air flux condition and it provides important information on the nature of reactions and the physics of the process which must be considered when attempting to predict combustion front exhaustion using a numerical simulator.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".