Stability of In-Situ-Combustion Process to Stoppage of Air Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Unlike steam injection for heavy-oil recovery, the in-situ-combustion (ISC)process requires an extra step--namely, the initiation of the process, theso-called ignition operation. During ignition, an ISC front is generated nearthe air-injection well and, thereafter, this front is propagated towardproduction wells. Air-injection interruptions can be unintentional orintentional, including scheduled interruptions for 1 day per month for cleaningoil from air lines exiting the compressors. Regarding air-injectioninterruptions, one question arises: Can the process be resumed withoutinitiating a new ignition operation? This paper attempts to provide answers tothis question. The paper reviews information on 10 cases of air-injectionstoppage in the field, involving well-instrumented dry ISC projects, conductedeither in patterns or in a line-drive system. Most of the cases are from theSuplacu de Barcau (Romania) project, which is the world's largest ISCcommercial project. The duration of air-injection interruptions ranged from afew hours to 42 days. Performance before and after interruptions is analyzed interms of changes in air injectivity, effluent-gas composition, and oilproduction. To support various field observations, essential results fromsimulation of the dry ISC process are also included; temperature distributionsduring air-injection stoppage were determined analytically for a linear systemand numerically for a radial system. In both cases, a specific characteristicof the temperature redistribution was noted: the move/shift of the peaktemperature inside the former burned-out zone. Some additional conclusionsregarding the stability of the process as a function of elapsed time since theinitiation of the process were also formulated. Stability of the process wasinvestigated for air-injection interruptions lasting up to 40 days.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".