Effects of Gravity, Foaminess and Pressure Draw Down on Primary Depletion Recovery Factor in Heavy Oil Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The unusually high primary recovery factors observed in many heavy oil reservoirs are often attributed to foamy oil flow, i.e. the non-Darcy flow involving formation and flow of gas-in-oil dispersion. It occurs when the wells are produced aggressively at high drawdown pressures that lead to conditions in which the viscous forces become strong enough to overcome the capillary forces in pushing dispersed bubbles through pore throats. The role of gravitational forces in generating such dispersed flow has not been adequately studied. This work was aimed at evaluating the contribution of gravitational forces in primary depletion of heavy oil formations under foamy flow conditions. Primary depletion tests were conducted in a 200 cm long sand-pack that was held in either horizontal or vertical orientation. The results of horizontal depletion tests were compared with the depletion tests conducted with the sand-pack in vertical direction. Vertical depletions showed better recoveries at slower depletion rates compared to horizontal depletions. The recovery factors of both horizontal and vertical depletions were correlated against the average drawdown pressure available to move the oil. It was found that the recovery factor show a strong dependence on the average drawdown pressure. It was also found that the curve of recovery factor versus average drawdown pressure moves slightly towards higher recoveries in the presence of an added foaming agent which increases the oil foaminess.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".