Determination of Residual Oil Saturation in A Carbonate Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Single-well tracer testing has been widely accepted as a standard method for measuring residual oil saturation to waterflood. Residual oil saturation is an important parameter in the evaluation of tertiary oil recovery potential for depleted reservoirs. At an advanced stage of depletion, Leduc, a Canadian carbonate reservoir, has been considered as a candidate for enhanced oil recovery. As part of the evaluation process, single-well tracer tests were conducted at two watered-out producers to determine residual oil saturation to waterflood. The tracer production profiles were found to be highly skewed with long tails and early arrival times, which are typical for carbonate reservoirs. Two different models, namely a double-porosity model where tracer could distribute between the flowing and non-flowing pores through mass transfer and a single-porosity model where a fictitious water drift rate was assumed in the test zone, were used to interpret the data. It was found that either model could match the data to the same degree of accuracy regardless of the flow mechanisms assumed and the residual oil saturation derived from these two models were 35% and 38% respectively. This demonstrates the robust nature of the test that the non-uniqueness of the match does not affect residual oil saturation determination. The residual oil saturation determined by simple analytical models including mass balance method, peak method and mean retention volume method were all in the range of 34% to 38%, in excellent agreement with the simulation results. As well, the Sorw obtained by the SWTT method compared favorably with those determined by interwell tracing (35%) and sponge coring (33%).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".