Effects of Heavy-Oil/Solvent Interfacial Tension on Gravity Drainage in the Vapor Extraction (Vapex) Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The vapor extraction (VAPEX) process is a promising technology for recovering heavy oil and bitumen resources in an economically viable and environmentally friendly way. Although a number of laboratory experiments have been conducted to study the VAPEX process, the oil recovery mechanisms by gravity drainage in this process are not well understood yet. In this paper, both experimental and theoretical approaches are adopted to study the effects of gravity and the capillary force on gravity drainage in the VAPEX process. First, the interfacial tensions between a heavy oil sample and four different solvents (methane, ethane, propane, and carbon dioxide) are measured at different pressures below their respective vapor pressures by applying the axisymmetric drop shape analysis (ADSA) technique for the pendant drop case. Then, the Bond number, which is defined as the ratio of gravity to the capillary force, is calculated for the VAPEX process in a heavy oil reservoir and in a physical model of sand pack, respectively. It is found that the measured interfacial tension between the heavy oil and a solvent is reduced almost linearly with pressure for the four heavy oil-solvent systems tested. Correspondingly, the Bond number increases with pressure. An increased Bond number indicates relatively large effect of gravity on the VAPEX process and thus enhanced oil recovery.
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".