MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089696960 · doi:10.2118/08-11-56

Clarifications on Oil/Heavy Oil Recovery Under Ultrasonic Radiation Through Core and 2D Visualization Experiments

2008· article· en· W2089696960 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kamyar Naderi, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSharif University of Technology
KeywordsImbibitionUltrasonic sensorWettingPetroleum engineeringSurface tensionCapillary actionMaterials scienceSaturation (graph theory)ViscosityCore (optical fiber)Capillary pressureEnhanced oil recoveryPorous mediumAcousticsComposite materialGeologyPorosityPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207