MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066012536 · doi:10.2118/2005-103

Estimation of Bubble Size in Heavy Oil Solution Drive Based on Kinetics of Gas Exsolution

2005· article· en· W2066012536 on OpenAlexaff
R.C.K. Wong, Brij Maini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleKineticsEstimationPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In situ oil sands are dense uncemented fine-grained sands that contain substantial amount of methane and carbon dioxide gases in pore water and heavy oil. Gas evolves when the pore pressure drops to the bubble point pressure (liquid-gas saturation pressure) due to a decrease in confining pressure or fluid production. The volume and pore pressure changes in live oil-filled sand specimens due to decrease in confining pressure under undrained condition were examined in laboratory. A mechanistic model based on kinetics of gas bubble growth due to solute diffusion in supersaturated oil liquid was formulated and presented to interpret the observed time-dependent nonthermodynamic equilibrium behaviour of pore pressure and volume changes. It was found that the bubble sizes could be estimated indirectly by matching the pore pressure response of the live-oil filled system. Introduction The formation of dispersed gas bubbles (or foamy oil) in the heavy oil has been postulated to be an important factorcontributing to the success in primary production of heavy oil reservoirs 1, 2. It has been hypothesized that the foamy nature of the heavy oil maintains the released solution gas dispersed in the continuous oil phase, which is very different from the convention oil behaviour. The flow behaviour, pressure responses and production rates of solution gas drive in heavy oils have been studied by several investigators using depletion tests (e.g., Sheng et al. 3; Wong et al. 4; Zhang et al. 5; Tang and Firoozabadi 6; Tsimpanogiannis and Yortos7). The depletion tests results consistently indicate that the recovery factors observed in the depletion tests of fast pressure decline rates are higher than those observed in tests of slow pressure decline rates. However, how the gas bubbles nucleate, grow, coalesce and flow is still in controversy, even though some experiments were equipped with visual aids. This paper proposes a novel technique to estimate the bubble size and density. This technique was developed from a mechanistic model based on kinetics of gas bubble growth due to solute diffusion in supersaturated oil liquid. A Mechanistic Model for Gas Exsolution Under Undrained Unloading Consider a sand specimen saturated with live oil that is encased inside an impermeable membrane (Fig. 1). The enclosed system is subjected to an external confining stress and internal pore pressure. The external stress is larger than the internal pore pressure resulting in a net (effective) confining stress. A stepwise drop in external confining stress is applied to the encased system in an instant (Fig. 1a). The internal pore pressure reacts to the step-wise drop in external confining stress (Fig. 1b). The instant drop in pore pressure depends on the total compressibility of the encased system including compressibilityof sand matrix, fluid, and gas phases. This instant drop in pore pressure disturbs the non-thermodynamic equilibrium existed in the gas solute concentration of the liquid, and leads to growth of the bubble due to solute diffusion. As the bubbles grow, the internal pore pressure increases under undrained condition because no gas or oil is allowed to escape from the enclosed system.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207