MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040099664 · doi:10.2118/148040-ms

Three-phase Hydrocarbon Thermodynamic Liquid-Liquid-Vapour Equilibrium in CO2 Process

2011· article· en· W2040099664 on OpenAlexaff
Abel Gomes Lins, Long X. Nghiem, Thomas G. Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocarbon mixturesPorous mediumHydrocarbonPhase (matter)ThermodynamicsThermodynamic equilibriumFlash evaporationPetroleumPetroleum engineeringPhase equilibriumPorosityChemistryGeologyPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hydrocarbon phase behaviour must be rigorously represented when there is a need to properly account for mass transfer between phases in a porous medium. The overly simplified black-oil formulation, although appropriate for primary depletion and waterflooding, provides inadequate representation of miscible displacement processes. As a result, compositional simulation has evolved to provide thermodynamically consistent means to accurately describe the phases and compositions present within the porous reservoir rocks. Compositional simulators have become essential modelling tools for CO2 processes in the Petroleum Industry. Advances in computational power have encouraged the development of meaningful improvements and refinements that were not possible until very recently. CO2 injection into an oil reservoir at low temperatures causes the appearance of a three-phase hydrocarbon thermodynamic Liquid-Liquid-Vapour (LLV) equilibrium. The traditional use of a two-phase flash calculation in this three-phase region may lead to instability problems. Besides, commercial compositional simulators normally do not consider two-phase hydrocarbon Liquid-Liquid (LL) thermodynamic equilibrium that appears in oil reservoirs at low temperatures in the presence of CO2. Instead, it is treated as a Liquid-Vapour (LV) thermodynamic equilibrium and the fluid flux behaviour is not well represented. A compositional simulator must be able to represent adequately the LL hydrocarbon thermodynamic equilibrium when it is present in order to rigorously model the reservoir phase behaviour in the presence of CO2. A novel procedure has been developed to overcome instabilities which may arise in calculation of multiphase liquid-liquid-vapour (LLV) hydrocarbon phase equilibrium. In addition, a new procedure has been developed for representing the thermodynamic liquid-liquid hydrocarbon equilibrium in a compositional simulator. This new procedure represents the real behaviour of the fluid flux. It is more rigorous than the traditional approach of lumping of the two liquid phases into a pseudo single liquid phase or as a liquid-vapour (LV) thermodynamic equilibrium. The results of this implementation are presented and analyzed in detail.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and ExhibitionSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207