Determination of Minimum Miscibility Pressure of Crude Oil–CO<sub>2</sub> System by Oil Swelling/Extraction Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of crude oil–CO2 systems was determined through analyzing the experimental data of swelling/extraction tests. First, the oil swelling factor (SF) as a result of CO2 dissolution in a crude oil sample was determined at four different temperatures in the range of T=21–40 °C. In addition, three sets of swelling/extraction data of previous studies were collected and included so that more conclusive and satisfactory results can be obtained. The results demonstrated that the oil swelling factor increases with the equilibrium pressure (Peq), reaches the maximum value at light hydrocarbon extraction pressure (Pext), and then reduces with further increase in equilibrium pressure. It was found that the reduction behavior of oil swelling factor occurs in two distinct regions. In the upper extraction phase (UEP), the oil swelling factor decreased sharply at pressures just over extraction pressure and then declined gradually in what is called the lower extraction phase (LEP). Finally, the MMP of the crude oil–CO2 system at a specific temperature was estimated by finding the intersection of the linear regression correlation corresponding to each of the aforementioned regions (i.e., UEP and LEP). The crude oil–CO2 MMP was also determined by employing the vanishing interfacial tension (VIT) technique and a series of CO2 injection tests. Comparing the MMP values of the crude oil–CO2 systems determined by three methods revealed that the MMP values estimated by swelling/extraction data are in approximate agreement with those determined by the two other methods.
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".