Investigation of Relationships between Petroleum Properties and Their Impact on Crude Oil Compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-two crude oils around the world, from which 19 are processed in the LUKOIL Neftohim Burgas (LNB) refinery, were characterized in the LNB research laboratory by measuring 67 properties. These 22 crude oils included light low sulfur, light sulfur, intermediate low sulfur, intermediate sulfur, intermediate high sulfur, heavy high sulfur, and extra heavy extra high sulfur crudes. A new mathematical approach—the intercriteria analysis—was employed to study the relations between the petroleum properties. It was found that the petroleum properties, density, and sulfur content, along with the crude oil simulated distillation, seem to be capable of providing the same information as that from the full assay of a crude oil. Crude oils containing insoluble asphaltenes (self-incompatible oils) were found to have a high content of low aromaticity naphtha and kerosene. It was found that the asphaltene solubility correlated with the asphaltene hydrogen content. The oil solubility power was found to correlate with the oil saturate content. The oil colloidal stability seems to be controlled by the following rule: “like dissolves like”. The higher the aromaticity of the asphaltenes, the higher the aromaticity of the oil is required to keep the asphaltenes in solution. The processing of blends of oils which are incompatible or nearly incompatible may deteriorate the performance of the dewatering and desalting in the refinery, which consequently may damage the equipment due to accelerated corrosion, entailed by salt deposition. The processing of blends of oils, which are incompatible, not always can be related to an increased fouling.
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) | 0.000 | 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".