Analysis of Oil Recovery by Spontaneous Imbibition of Surfactant Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Depending on rock and oil type, lowered interfacial tension (IFT) by the addition of surfactant to brine may contribute to capillary imbibition recovery with the support of gravity drainage in naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR). This paper aims at identifying and analyzing the recovery mechanisms and performing up-scaling exercises for oil recovery from different rock types by the capillary (spontaneous) imbibition of surfactant solution. Laboratory tests were performed using four different rock types that could possibly be the reservoir rock matrix of the NFRs (sandstone, limestone, dolomitic limestone and chalk). The sandstone sample was surface-coated to create a boundary condition causing only counter-current interaction. Wide variety of oils (light and heavy-crude oils, kerosene, and engine oil) was selected as the oleic phase. Different types (non-ionic and anionic) and concentrations of surfactants were used as the aqueous phase as well as the brine as a base case. The samples fully saturated with oil (Swi=0) were exposed to static capillary imbibition and the recovery was monitored against time. Some experiments on the chalks were repeated using pre-wet samples (Swi > 0) to clarify the changes in the capillary imbibition characteristics of the rock. The changes (positive or negative) in the recovery rate and ultimate recovery compared to the brine imbibition were evaluated for the rock, surfactant and oil types. It was observed, for some rock samples, that the imbibition recovery by surfactant solution was strictly controlled by the concentration of the surfactant. On the other hand, the difference in the recovery rate and ultimate recovery between high and low IFT could be due not only to change in the IFT but also the change in the wettability and adsorption, which might vary with the rock type. This was also analyzed using the shape of the curves that indicates the strength of the capillarity on the recovery and the interaction type, i.e., co- or counter-current. In addition to the above-mentioned qualitative analysis, the recovery curves were evaluated for up-scaling. Existing dimensionless scaling groups were tested. The scaling exercise helped identify whether the recovery is driven by gravity or capillary forces and clarify the interaction type, i.e., co-or counter-current or both. The ultimate recoveries were correlated to the Inverse Bond Number using twenty-five cases covering different combinations of four rock types, four oil and four surfactant samples. It was shown that the inclusion of the wettability factor would make the correlation more universal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".