MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054235442 · doi:10.1115/1.1789518

A New Model to Simulate Gas Injection in Gas Chamber Pumps

2004· article· en· W2054235442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Pilo-Restuccia, Luis R. Rojas-Solo ́rzano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadGas liftPetroleum engineeringCabin pressurizationFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceArtificial liftFlow (mathematics)MechanicsGeologyMechanical engineeringEngineeringWaste managementPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, there exist large heavy-oil reserves in countries like Venezuela and Canada. In Venezuela, heavy oil represents 69% of the reserves, and its exploitation is not always feasible using traditional pumping technologies. In particular, this is the case of some in-lake oil wells in Venezuela, which are impossible to exploit by means of any known efficient way of oil lifting. An alternative is the gas-chamber pumping (GCP), an intermittent artificial lift method used in diverse areas of USA, in shallow wells with heavy oil and in areas where a source of high-pressure gas exists. Few works are reported on the modeling of the phenomena associated to GCP, the most rigorous being the one published by PDVSA-Intevep in the year 2000. This model, however, omits some key aspects related with gas injection, which affects its precision to simulate or design GCP systems. The present work develops a model to rigorously simulate the stage of gas injection into the chamber, incorporating aspects like the flow of gas from the supply manifold up to the wellhead, the gas expansion within the injection valve, the descending flow along a coiled tubing, and the heat transfer associated. The pressurization process and chamber venting are also modeled. The model predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental data [1].

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologySame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207