MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319149387 · doi:10.1021/ef101085j

Effects of Clay Wettability and Process Variables on Separation of Diluted Bitumen Emulsion

2010· article· en· W2319149387 on OpenAlexaff
Tianmin Jiang, George J. Hirasaki, Clarence A. Miller, Samson Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemulsifierEmulsionOil sandsWettingTolueneAsphaltChemistryChemical engineeringNaphthaSilicateViscosityAsphalteneTotal dissolved solidsMaterials scienceChromatographyMineralogyOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initial processing of bitumen froth obtained using a water-based extraction process from Athabasca oil sands yields stable water-in-bitumen emulsions. When the bitumen is diluted with naphtha to reduce its viscosity and density, almost complete separation can be obtained with a demulsifier in the absence of clay solids. However, a “rag layer” persists between the oil and free water layers when clay solids are present. Effects of the naphtha/bitumen (N/B) ratio, demulsifier selection, and silicate dosage on the rag layer formation and product quality have been studied. Emulsions with a N/B ratio of 0.7 are more stable than those with a N/B ratio of 4.0. This can be partially attributed to the difference in viscosity and density affecting the sedimentation velocity. The residual water and solid contents in the oil layer decrease with the addition of silicate. This behavior is attributed to the effect of silicate on clay wettability. Clay solids have toluene-soluble organic contents, which vary as follows: in the oil layer > in the rag layer > in the bottom layer. This result indicates that the solids are the most water-wet in the bottom (water) layer and the most oil-wet in the oil layer. In the same layer, samples with a N/B ratio of 0.7 have a higher toluene-soluble organic content in solids than those with a N/B ratio of 4.0. At 80 °C with a N/B ratio of 4.0, emulsion adding 200 ppm of demulsifier PR 6 and 4 × 10 −4 M sodium m -silicate had 0.3−1.5% water and 0.9% solids in the oil layer, with the water content decreasing with an increasing height above the rag layer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207