Experimental Analysis of Primary and Secondary Oil Recovery from Matrix by Counter-Current Diffusion and Spontaneous Imbibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Matrix–fracture interaction is a commonly encountered process in fractured subsurface reservoirs during oil, gas, and geothermal fluid recoveries and contaminant transport. It occurs in counter-current manner if the interaction between matrix and fracture takes place from the same side. In the first part of this paper, the effects of the matrix shape factor, wettability, and interfacial tension on the rate of capillary imbibition and development of residual non-wetting phase saturation were studied experimentally. In the second part, secondary oil recovery by diffusion of a solvent from the samples exposed to capillary imbibition is investigated. Primary diffusion experiments were also performed on selected core sizes for comparison. To achieve all these, experiments were conducted on Berea sandstone samples. Cylindrical samples with different shape factors were obtained by cutting the plugs ½, 1 and 2 inches in diameter and 2, 4, and 6 inches in length. All sides were coated with epoxy except one end. Static imbibition experiments were conducted on vertically and laterally situated samples where the imbibition took place upward and lateral directions, respectively. Brine-kerosene, brine-mineral oil and surfactant solution-mineral oil pairs were used as fluids. The rate of imbibition was evaluated for different matrix size, shape factor, wetting/non-wetting phase types and IFT. Conditions at which the shape factor controls the residual oil development were identified. Diffusion experiments were conducted using n-heptane as a solvent. In addition to the cores exposed to full capillary imbibition, oil saturated (virgin) cores were also tested. To serve as a benchmark, uncoated versions of two different core sizes were used. It was observed that the residual oil after capillary imbibition is controlled by the matrix shape factor for the vertically positioned samples unlike horizontal samples. Surfactant concentration plays a role on the rate of imbibition and the development of residual oil saturation. Primary and secondary diffusion experiment showed that it could be more efficient to begin the oil recovery process by capillary imbibition (primary recovery) then continue with diffusion (secondary recovery) depending on the matrix shape factor.
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".