MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320940146 · doi:10.2118/174510-pa

New Insight on Carbonate-Heavy-Oil Recovery: Pore-Scale Mechanisms of Post-Solvent Carbon Dioxide Foam/Polymer-Enhanced-Foam Flooding

2016· article· en· W2320940146 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarbon Management CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsMicromodelEnhanced oil recoveryCarbonatePetroleum engineeringCarbon dioxideSolventChemical engineeringPolymerMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceWaste managementChemistryGeologyComposite materialPorous mediumPorosityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Carbonate reservoirs, deposited in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), hold significant reserves of heavy crude oil that can be recovered by nonthermal processes. Solvent, gas, water, and water-alternating-gas (WAG) injections are the main methods for carbonate-heavy-oil recovery in the WCSB. Because of the fractured nature of carbonate formations, many advantages of these production methods are usually in contrast with their low recovery factor. Alternative processes are therefore needed to increase oil-sweep efficiency from carbonate reservoirs. Foam/polymer-enhanced-foam (PEF) injection has gained interest in conventional heavy-oil recovery in recent times. However, the oil-recovery process by foam, especially PEF, in conjunction with solvent injection is less understood in fractured heavy-oil-carbonate reservoirs. The challenge is to understand how the combination of surfactant, gas, and polymer allows us to better access the matrix and efficiently sweep the oil. This study introduces a new approach to access the unrecovered heavy oil in fractured-carbonate reservoirs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) foam and CO2 PEF were used to decrease oil saturation after solvent injection, and their performance was compared with gas injection. A specially designed fractured micromodel was used to visualize the pore-scale phenomena during CO2-foam/PEF injection. In addition, the static bulk performances of CO2 foam/PEF were analyzed in the presence of heavy crude oil. A high-definition camera was used to capture high-quality images. The results showed that in both static and dynamic studies the PEF had high stability. Unlike CO2 PEF, CO2 foam lamella broke much faster and resulted in the collapse of the foam during heavy-oil recovery after solvent flooding. It appeared that foam played a greater role than just gas-mobility control. Foam showed outstanding improvement in heavy-oil recovery over gas injection. The presence of foam bubbles was the main reason to improve heavy-oil-sweep efficiency in heterogeneous porous media. When the foam bubbles advanced through pore throats, the local capillary number increased enough to displace the emulsified oil. PEF bubbles generated an additional force to divert surfactant/polymer into the matrix. Overall, CO2 foam and PEF remarkably increased heavy-oil recovery after solvent injection into the fractured reservoir.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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