MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086636203 · doi:10.2118/2003-024

Micro-Model Experiments and Network Modelling of Bubble Growth in Foamy Oil Flow

2003· article· en· W2086636203 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farzam Javadpour, Ayodeji Jeje

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleFlow (mathematics)Data flow modelComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The subject of bubble nucleation, growth, and movement in some of the solution-gas-drive heavy oil reservoirs (foamy oil) has been examined in the last few years. The behaviour of foamy oil reservoirs is different from conventional oil reservoirs in terms of pressure decline, oil recovery, and production gas-oil ratio. We studied the mechanism of bubble growth in an etched glass micro-model of porous media with concomitant network modelling. Bubble growth from sizes smaller than a pore to the sizes covering several pores is investigated. Movements of the gas-liquid interfaces at different stages of growth are examined. The force balances on bubbles at different stages of expansion is studied for two cases where the size of a bubble is smaller than the pore body and where bubble has grown enough to make contact with pore walls and invade the adjacent pore throats. Finally, a network model of porous media (pore level simulator), which includes viscous, capillary and pressure forces is developed to follow bubble growth as a result of pressure depletion in a porous medium. Effects of oil viscosity, pressure depletion rate, wettability, and capillarity on the size of a solitary bubble are investigated. Increased oil viscosity hinders bubble growth and bubbles become unstable and break-up after limited expansion. Introduction Some solution-gas-drive heavy oil reservoirs in Canada, Venezuela, China and Oman have demonstrated unusually high primary production rates, high primary oil recovery factors (>10%), low producing gas-oil ratio, and low reservoir-pressure-decline(1,2). To explain these anomalies, three hypotheses have been advanced: geomechanical effects (3), special fluid properties (4), and unusual flow dependent properties of the oil and gas (5). For the last category, it is believed that local pore-level processes involving the bubble formation, growth, breakup, and coalescence account for the unusual behaviour in solution-gas- drive heavy oil reservoirs. An interplay of bubble formation, growth, coalescence and break-up determines the critical gas saturation and relative mobility of the gas phase. Knowledge of these pore level events is necessary to derive physically meaningful rate expressions for modeling fluid flow on a macroscopic scale such as reservoir simulators or in mechanistic models. Rock properties such as porosity and permeability, fluid properties such as viscosity and composition, and reservoir rock/fluid characterization such as spreading coefficient and wettability affect the local events for bubbles. The topology and morphology of a porous medium affect the mechanism of bubble growth. Therefore, a bubble would expand differently in a porous structure compare to in an open system. Dominguez et al. (6) have demonstrated that the shape and size of bubbles in a network of porous medium and in a Hele-shaw cell are very different. This study is related to describing foamy oil flows when bubbles grow at pore-size level. Network models are simplified mathematical representation of real porous material. The objective of a network model is to provide a reasonable idealization of the complex geometry of the real porous medium at microscopic scale or pore-level, so that related fluid flow and interface movement can be treated mathematically at a manageable level of complexity.

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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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