Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foamy oil viscosity is a controversial topic among researchers as to what happens to the apparent oil viscosity when the dispersed gas bubbles start migrating with the oil. For conventional oils, below the true bubble point pressure, the oil viscosity increases as the gas freely evolves from the oil. For foamy oils, it has been suggested that the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersion remains relatively constant, or perhaps declines slightly between the true bubble point and a characteristic lower pressure, called pseudo bubble point, which is the pressure at which the gas starts separating from the oil. Below this pressure, the viscosity increases, reaching the dead oil value at atmospheric pressure. However, it is a well known fact in dispersion rheology that the viscosity of dispersion is higher than the viscosity of the continuous phase. Therefore, the concept of foamy oil viscosity being lower than the oil viscosity is counterintuitive. The major difference here is the extreme viscosity of the base liquid phase for foamy oil and how this interacts with the gas phase in a porous medium. The reported results appear to be very oil specific in this area, and are also a very strong function of how rapidly pressure is depleted in a given system. It is also likely that the apparent viscosity for flow of foamy oil in porous media is not the true dispersion viscosity due to the size of dispersed bubbles being comparable to the pore sizes. This study aims to investigate this issue by measuring the foamy oil viscosity under varied conditions. The effect of several parameters, such as shear/flow rate, and gas volume fraction and type of viscometer employed, on foamy oil viscosity was experimentally evaluated. Three different viscosity measurement techniques, including Cambridge viscometer, capillary tube as well as a slim tube packed with sand, were used to measure the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersions. The results show that the type of measuring device used has a significant effect. The results obtained with Cambridge falling needle viscometer correlate better with the observed behavior in the slim tube than the capillary viscometer results. Also, unlike live oils, the apparent viscosity of foamy oils was flow rate dependent. Overall, the viscosity of foamy oil was found to be similar to live oil viscosity for a large range of gas volume fraction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".