Effects of sand and process water pH on toluene diluted heavy oil in water emulsions in turbulent flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presence of sand in heavy oil production is known to enhance oil recovery. Sand can also be detrimental depending on the properties of the sand–water interface. In this process, the water soluble material interacts with both sand and oil droplets and affects emulsion stability. The formation and stability of heavy oil‐in‐water emulsions during turbulent flow using batch process stirred‐tank mixing of oil, sand, and water were investigated at three pH. Size distributions were measured by laser diffraction. High‐speed video photomicrography was used to observe the process during mixing. Results showed that the presence of sand enhanced formation of stable, fine emulsion at basic pH 8.5. When the pH of the water was reduced below 6.5 both sand and droplets surface properties changed, the emulsions became less stable and coalescence was apparent. The sand grains acted as coalescers at low pH and enhanced breakage at high pH. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2008 AIChE J, 2009
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".