Study on Minimum Air Flux for In-situ Combustion into Light Oil Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In-situ combustion projects in heavy oil reservoirs were started early part of the last century. The number of projects was increasing toward 1960s. More than 120 projects were carried out in U.S. at that time. After 1970s, it plunged to less than one-tenth. But in the middle of 90s, it began to increase again. The main reason for this rise was an increase in-situ combustion projects in light oil reservoirs and recently they have been increasing. Since 1999, our study of the light oil reservoir from the Minami-Aga oil field in Japan has continued. Now we focus our attention on minimum air flux which is needed to sustain a combustion front. The minimum air flux will be used to design an air compressor for a pilot-project. A discussion of minimum air flux for heavy oils was published by Nelson and McNeil5. It is believed that a mechanism of combustion for the light oil is different from the heavy oil. It is also believed that the light oil's combustion front is less stable than the heavy oil's. Therefore in our case to estimate the minimum air flux, it might be better to take a different way. In this paper, a thermal simulator was used to estimate the minimum air flux. Prior to a simulation study some High Pressure Ramped Temperature Oxidation (HP-RTO) tests with our oil were carried out to obtain combustion parameter. A reaction model in the thermal simulator was obtained based on the HP-RTO tests results.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".