A Comparative Study of Transient and Steady-State Three-Phase Oil Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Relative permeabilities for three-phase flow are commonly predicted from two-phase-flow measurements using empirical models. These empirical models are usually tested against available steady-state data. However, the oil flow is transient during various production stages [e.g., gas injection after waterflood and steamassisted gravity drainage (SAGD)]. Hence, there is a need to test the empirical models against unsteady-state or transient data. We compare two sets of three-phase oil-permeability data measured during tertiary gasflood. The first data set, which was recently published (Dehghanpour et al. 2011a), is measured during transient gravity-drainage experiments, and will be detailed further here. The second set was measured by Oak et al. (1990) during steady-state corefloods. We compare the two data sets with the corresponding two-phase permeability curves, and observe different qualitative behaviours. The comparison indicates that during steady-state tertiary gasflood, the presence and flow of water restrict the oil flow, while during transient tertiary gasflood, water-saturation drop enhances the oil flow. We test the performance of well-known empirical models further in predicting the two data sets, and explain how Stone I and saturation-weighted interpolation (SWI) should be used to usefully predict oil permeability during a three-phase tertiary displacement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".