MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049529590 · doi:10.2118/0311-0089-jpt

A Systematic Workflow Process for Heavy-Oil Characterization

2011· article· en· W2049529590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Bybee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltPetroleum engineeringAPI gravityPetroleumUnconventional oilOil sandsViscosityCharacterization (materials science)Environmental scienceWorkflowEnhanced oil recoveryEmulsionProcess engineeringFossil fuelComputer scienceChemistryGeologyMaterials scienceChemical engineeringWaste managementEngineeringCrude oilNanotechnologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 137006, ’A Systematic Workflow Process for Heavy Oil Characterization: Experimental Techniques and Challenges,’ by A.I. Memon, SPE, J. Gao, SPE, S.D. Taylor, SPE, T.L. Davies, SPE, and N. Jia, SPE, Schlumberger, originally prepared for the 2010 SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19-21 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. The full-length paper summarizes a heavy-oil fluid-characterization technique that includes fluid-sample handling, pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) analysis, fluid viscosity, emulsion and rheology, and slow kinetics of gas evolution during a constant-com-position-expansion (CCE) experiment. The experimental methodologies, including the merits and experimental limitations for these measurements, are discussed. Introduction The increasing demand for energy has increased the interest in heavy oil and bitumen. One of the keys to meeting this increasing demand for heavy oil is a thorough characterization of the reservoir fluids. Heavy or viscous oils typically are defined as either heavy oil or bitumen. Heavy oils have a gravity between 22.3 and 10°API and a viscosity of 100 to 100 000 mPas. Bitumens are oils with a gravity less than 10°API and viscosity greater than 100 000 mPass. Fluid characterization of heavy oils and bitumen is required for several purposes, including oil-quality evaluation, selection and optimization of production processes, facilities planning, transport planning, and process monitoring. In the case of selecting and optimizing processes to extract heavy oil from a reservoir, fluid-characterization efforts normally are focused on understanding the mobility and changes to the mobility under different production conditions. Such understanding and the ability to manipulate mobility depend on knowledge of petroleum-fluid thermodynamics, chemistry, and transport phenomena. Heavy-oil production methods can be divided into four main categories: (1) cold-depletion production, (2) water-flood production, (3) thermal production, and (4) solvent-flood production processes. Cold-depletion production methods do not require any addition of heat and can be used when the viscosity of heavy oil at reservoir conditions is sufficiently low to allow the flow of oil to the surface. In some cases, cold-production processes will include diluent injections within the wellbore to decrease fluid viscosity. Waterflooding is a cold secondary-oil-recovery method to produce heavy oil with relatively low viscosity. This method has not been successful for moderate- to high-viscosity heavy oil because of several limitations including fingering of waterflood fronts, which may result in poor sweep efficiency. In typical thermal methods, steam is injected in one of several configurations such as huff ‘n’ puff or steamflooding using a multiwell process or steam-assisted gravity drainage. The solvent-flood production process includes the injection of vaporized solvents such as propane or carbon dioxide. Some processes under consideration may combine approaches from these four categories, such as steam/solvent-injection processes.

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 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207