Development of a Microfluidic Device for Rapid Assessment of EOR Additives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microfluidics permits small scale economically controllable testing/analysis environments, and has been leveraged in biochemistry and the life sciences to access previously unavailable efficiencies, most notably in DNA sequencing, protein analysis, and soft material (e.g. tissues, emulsions) synthesis. Recently, these techniques have been applied to petroleum science and the results show promise. Methods have been reported in the literature for studying CO2 diffusion, investigating reservoir fluid phase behaviour, and asphaltene content measurement. These methods drastically reduce sample volume (from litres to nanolitres) and measurement time (from several hours or days to 30 minutes or less) requirements, while maintaining or increasing accuracy offered by traditional methods. In the present study, we used microfluidics to simulate the situation where emulsions form in the SAGD process in two situations; pure steam injection and steam + additives injection. Emulsions were generated in pore-scale geometries (~ 100 µm) without and with an alkaline additive. It was found that alkaline solutions produced finer emulsions (by up to nn%). A weak dependence of mean emulsion diameter on additive concentration was also observed. In addition to informing improvements to EOR, the platform may be adapted for use in studying emulsions formed during oil and gas processing as well (e.g. in valves, pumps).
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 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 it