Experimental Study of Capillary Effect in CO2 Solvent Extraction Process for Oil Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bitumen may be separated from oil sand in surface mining operations by using an anhydrous process in which oil sand is mixed with a low boiling solvent such as naphtha. While the majority of bitumen is removed from the sand there is a residual amount of bitumen that remains on the sand and this residue also contains some of the solvent used in the process. It is important to effectively recover as much of the solvent trapped in the spent solids as possible. After most of the bitumen-solvent mixture has been removed from the sand, pressurized CO2 can be used as an anti-solvent to displace residual solvent in the spent sand bed. In this study, an experimental investigation is made of the effect of capillary force to enhance solvent recovery by mechanical separation, before proceeding to CO2 extraction. Using a thin, semi-permeable layer can facilitate drainage of the solvent from coated sand by capillary force. The results indicate that by using a micro filter the solvent saturation in the sand can be decreased to about half of solvent saturation achievable without using a membrane. It is also possible to further decrease the solvent saturation in sand by pressurizing the air above the sand bed, but it is a slow process. This experimental study suggests that higher efficiency can be obtained by this simple method and that it has potential to reduce the amount of CO2 required for the next step of solvent recovery by gas extraction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".