Combined Steam–Air Flooding Studies: Experiments, Numerical Simulation, and Field Test in the Qi-40 Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air has the characteristics of low-temperature oxidation (LTO) as well as improving drainage energy. Therefore, it can be co-injected with steam to enhance an oil recovery factor. This paper studies combined steam–air flooding for heavy oil recovery. Four experiments, including one steam flooding experiment and three combined steam–air flooding experiments, are studied. The volume ratios of air and steam in these three combined flooding experiments are 1:2, 1:1, and 2:1, respectively. The experimental results show that combined steam–air flooding can enhance the oil recovery factor when the volume ratio of air and steam is in a certain range. Furthermore, numerical simulation results show that its temperature and oil recovery tendency are similar to those from the experiments. In the numerical simulation study, an optimal volume ratio of air and steam is 1.5:2. Finally, a field test of combined steam–air flooding in the Qi-40 block of the Liaohe oil field is studied to validate the experimental and numerical results. Results show that air can be an effective additive that enhances heavy oil recovery in a steam flooding process.
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".