Polymer/Gel Enhanced Foam Flood for Improving Post-Waterflood Heavy Oil Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to its low cost, excellent injected performance and good blocking capacity for high permeability zones, polymer/gel enhanced foam flood has been proven as an efficient method to improve oil recovery. This paper presents an optimization study of the slug size of polymer enhanced foam (preformed foam) and a study of gel-enhanced foam on oil recovery and high permeability zone blocking for a Saskatchewan heavy oil. A series of sandpack tests with different slug sizes are conducted to investigate the oil recovery performance of polymer enhanced foam flood. The experimental results indicate that, by considering the foam flood efficiency, the optimal slug size of polymer enhanced foam flood is 1.5 PV in this study. For gel enhanced foam flood, the single-sandpack tests suggest that the gel enhanced foam flood and extended waterflood can still significantly improve the oil recovery (up to 24.1%) after polymer enhanced foam flood; the parallel-sandpack test indicates that gel-foam can efficiently promote the oil recovery in the lower permeability layer by modifying the injection profile. In summary, gel enhanced foam can be used as the fourth recovery method for heavy oil reservoirs after initial waterflood and polymer enhanced foam flood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".