MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043979973 · doi:10.2118/165444-ms

Coupling of Solvent and Hot Water to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery: Experimental and Simulation Studies

2013· article· en· W2043979973 on OpenAlex
Weiguo Luo, Farshid Torabi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringSolventWater injection (oil production)ViscosityWater floodingOil in placeCore (optical fiber)Materials scienceCoupling (piping)Computer simulationPorosityEnvironmental scienceChemistryGeologyPetroleumMechanicsComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are abundant heavy oil deposits characterized by shallow depth, thin pay zone, low porosity, and bottom water in Western Canada. These types of reservoirs are neither suitable for thermal heavy oil recovery techniques (e.g. SAGD) nor for solvent injection (e.g. VAPEX). Coupling of Solvent and Hot Water (CSHW) injection was proposed and examined as an alternative to improve the heavy oil recovery in these reservoirs. In this study, a series of core flooding tests and numerical simulations were conducted to investigate and evaluate the CSHW injection performance in thin heavy oil reservoirs containing oil with viscosity of around 1,000 to 6,000 cP. To identify the contribution of hot water and solvent as well as their effectiveness when they combined, three types of core flooding tests were performed individually using hot water, solvent, and CSHW injection. In addition, the effects of oil viscosity, water injection temperature (15°C, 24°C, 50°C, 65°C) and solvent (C1, C3, C1+C3) on oil recovery were examined. Moreover, effects of parameters such as injection rate, displacement volume, slug size, and injection pattern were also investigated. Furthermore, the core flooding tests were history matched based on the established numerical simulation model. The effects of temperature and solvent components on multi-phase fluid flow were examined through numerical simulation. As the result, the optimal CSHW injection parameters were screened based on experimental and numerical studies conducted. Results of this study showed that the oil recovery factor was enhanced by 19.1% when temperature of injection water increases from 24°C to 65°C. More importantly, it was found that the CSHW is a more feasible option that recovers higher amount of oil at lower cost when compared with pure solvent or hot water injection. In addition results indicated that if smaller slugs of hot water and solvent are injected, the recovery process is more efficient. In this particular study, injection of smaller slugs resulted in 53.5% recovery factor. These results indicate that the CSHW is a promising hybrid process for the heavy oil recovery which requires low facility investment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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