Experimental and Numerical Modeling of Three-Phase Flow Under High-Pressure Air Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In this paper, an improved characterization of three-phase flow under high-pressure-air-injection (HPAI) conditions was achieved on the basis of experimental results and numerical reservoir simulation. A three-phase coreflood experiment was conducted at reservoir conditions, using 37°API stock-tank oil, an 84% nitrogen and 16% carbon dioxide flue-gas mixture, and 3% potassium chloride brine. The aim of the test was to evaluate the effects that the highly liquid-saturated front produced by the thermal reactions has on the mobility of each phase. Departing from connate-water saturation and reservoir pressure and temperature, sequential injection of water, gas, and oil was carried out, followed by a final gasflood to residual liquid saturation. Other two- and three-phase tests performed on this rock specimen were published elsewhere (Niz-Velásquez et al. 2009). Numerical history matching was employed to determine oil/water and liquid/gas relative permeability (kr) curves for both imbibition and drainage cases. A combustion-tube (CT) test was simulated using conventional kr curves and a set that included hysteresis. The degree of hysteresis observed during the coreflood test was maintained for the CT simulation. History matching of the coreflood showed that kr to the gas phase is much smaller during liquid reimbibition than during drainage. The use of gas-phase hysteresis for the CT test allows for a better matching of liquid volumes and pressure drop. Analysis of the simulated data suggests that the reduction in gas-phase mobility encourages an early increase in the oil rate, which is more consistent with experimental data than what is predicted by a model with conventional kr. The analysis also reveals that water distilled below the saturated steam temperature plays an important role in the increase of liquid saturation and oil mobilization. The improved characterization of relative permeability considering gas-phase hysteresis for simulating HPAI enhances the predictive capability of available commercial simulators, providing a more certain method to evaluate the technical and economical feasibility of a project. The ability to predict an early increase in oil rate, consistent with experimental observations, results in improved economics for the project.
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 | 0.001 | 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".