MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021099280 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21662

A new reaction model for aquathermolysis of Athabasca bitumen

2012· article· en· W2021099280 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Punitkumar R. Kapadia, Michael S. Kallos, Ian D. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltOil sandsHydrogenChemistryMethaneSteam injectionSteam reformingPetroleum engineeringHydrogen productionMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aquathermolysis of bitumen occurs when it is thermally cracked in the presence of water. Current in situ technologies for bitumen production, such as Cyclic Steam Stimulation and Steam‐Assisted Gravity Drainage, inject high pressure, high temperature steam in the reservoir to heat the bitumen which in turn lowers its viscosity enabling flow to a production well. Thus, the major physical effect of steam is the heating of bitumen which mobilises it. Beyond physical interactions, chemical effects also result: steam heating produces acid gases, such as carbon oxides, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide along with small amounts of hydrogen and methane. For steam‐based in situ bitumen recovery processes, nearly all analyses, including simple drainage theories and thermal reservoir simulations, focus solely on the physical processes: heat transfer, fluid flow and thermodynamic equilibrium. However, steam chambers are also underground reactors: bitumen aquathermolysis occurs due to high temperatures and water saturation. Here, we describe a new in situ aquathermolysis reaction scheme for Athabasca bitumen to predict hydrogen, methane, carbon oxides, hydrogen sulphide and other heavy molecular weight hydrocarbons. Reaction parameters were fitted against one experimental data set and validated against other independent experimental data sets, both from the literature. Our results indicate that, to more accurately predict gas compositions and rates, the effects of aquathermolysis should be taken into account in reservoir modelling. © 2012 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations64
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207