MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068674436 · doi:10.2118/165476-ms

Impact of Solvent Loss During Solvent Injection Processes

2013· article· en· W2068674436 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolventOil sandsSteam injectionPropaneChemistryAdsorptionAsphalteneChemical engineeringPetroleum engineeringWater injection (oil production)Materials scienceChromatographyGeologyComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Only 5 - 15% of the oil in Lloydminster heavy oil reservoirs is recovered during cold heavy production with sand (CHOPS). Solvent injection processes are being explored as a means of recovering the heavy oil remaining in the reservoir after CHOPS has been completed. Solvent retention becomes a main concern for the process economics. This paper evaluates the relative importance of different solvent retention mechanisms and how solvent can be recovered from the reservoir so that solvent injection processes (e.g. cyclic solvent injection (CSI), Vapor Extraction Process (VAPEX), thermal solvent, and steam-solvent) can be economically viable. In particular, CSI is a promising post-CHOPS follow-up process. Sources of solvent loss / retention include: Solvent trapped in the reservoir due to surface and interfacial forces including adsorption and capillary pressureSolvent vapor (free gas or trapped bubbles) in porous mediaDissolution in un-recovered oilDissolution in formation water or thief water zonesOther possible sources such as:Lack of confinement of injected fluids; especially important for post-CHOPS reservoirsHydrate formationPrecipitated asphaltenes Three experiments were performed to estimate solvent losses due to different retention mechanisms. In these experiments, gaseous propane was injected into a sand pack to a pressure of 750 kPag and then depressurized (at an ambient temperature of 21 °C) in 100 kPa steps to 50 kPag. The propane produced at each depressurization step was measured. The sand packs used in the experiments were: Sand pack initially saturated with water ("wet pack")Dry sand packSand pack initially flooded with water and then with dead Husky Edam oil The experimental results showed that there was significant propane retention in unproduced oil and as solvent gas. However, little propane adsorption occurred on the sand as it had a small surface area due to an insignificant amount of clays being present in the test packs. Solvent adsorption in a reservoir can be significant if there is a considerable amount of clays with a large surface area. It may be particularly high when shale is present. Propane concentrations in the produced water from the wet pack were similar to literature values. Solvent loss in water was small due to the low pressures involved in the test. However, solvent loss in water will be significant if the solvent dissolves into the formation water at high temperature (for liquid solvent) and/or high pressure especially if there is a significant water source to sweep away the dissolved solvent or the water causes hydrate formation.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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