Clarifications on Oil/Heavy Oil Recovery Under Ultrasonic Radiation Through Core and 2D Visualization Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our previous research on the effects of ultrasonic waves on oil recovery conducted at the University of Alberta had shown that capillarity and interfacial tension (IFT) might be responsible for the observed improvements in incremental oil recovery. Although the results seem encouraging, questions about the mechanism and effective parameters causing additional recovery still remain. To analyze the influence of parameters other than IFT and capillary forces, we conducted capillary imbibition experiments on cylindrical Berea sandstone core samples under ultrasonic radiation, and the results are presented in this paper. Through this experimental scheme, we focused on:the effect of initial water saturation for rocks with different wettability;oil viscosity; andmatrix wettability. The cores were placed into imbibition cells where they were contacted with an aqueous phase. Every experiment was conducted with and without ultrasonic radiation for comparison. Different intensities of ultrasonic waves were tested as well. To investigate the acoustic interaction between rock and fluid, we performed certain visualization experiments. We used 2D glass bead models to clarify the effects of ultrasonic waves on the oil displacement process for different oil viscosities and matrix wettability through comparative analysis. The qualitative and quantitative observations and analyses presented are expected to provide additional understanding regarding investigations in the use of in situ recovery of oil/heavy oil, as well as surface extraction. Introduction Acoustic energy was considered as one of the unconventional EOR methods to replace or to be applied with conventional ones. Studies have been conducted to understand the effects of acoustic energy on oil recovery over the last four decades. Duhon and Campbell(1) performed waterflood tests of cores with ultrasonic energy and showed that the ultrasonic energy improved the oil recovery and displacement efficiency in the cores. Beresnev and Johnson(2) performed a critical analysis of the work done in this area up to the early 1990s and provided a comprehensive review of the seismic and ultrasonic stimulation studies. They concluded that the elastic wave and seismic excitations of porous media affect permeability and production rates in most cases Kuznetsov et al.(3) reviewed seismic techniques for enhanced oil recovery and observed an increase in oil/water relative permeabilities and also oil recovery after elastic vibration. They concluded that this increase is due to fines removal by vibration. Roberts et al.(4) applied mechanical stresses to rock samples which were placed inside a core holder and observed changes in permeability and an increase in wettability in the non-wetting phase. There also exists field-scale applications of sound waves of different characteristics. Spanos et al.(5) observed improvements in waterflooding and injectivity when pressure pulses were applied by a hydraulically-operated tool. Westermark et al.(6) applied a complex system of vibration tools in the field and observed an improvement in permeability at certain intensities and up to a 20% increase in the oil production rate. Zhu et al.(7) documented the results of the application of a special downhole vibration tool in several oil fields in China, pointing out that sand content, water content, viscosity and density of oil decreased after treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".