Determination of Residual Oil Distribution during Waterflooding in Tight Oil Formations with NMR Relaxometry Measurements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NMR relaxometry measurements have been designed and applied to quantitatively determine residual oil distribution during waterflooding in tight oil formations. A tight core sample is first saturated with water to measure its NMR transverse relaxation time ( T 2 ) spectrum. NMR T 2 spectrum is then measured for the core sample after it has been displaced with the fluorinated oil. Subsequently, the core sample is displaced with water until residual oil saturation is achieved, and the NMR T 2 spectrum is measured again at the end of the displacement. Subsequently, the constant-rate mercury injection method is used to experimentally measure the size of the pore and throat in the core sample. The residual oil saturation is determined as a function of pore size by comparing the difference between the first and last NMR T 2 spectrum. It is found from four core samples with permeability of 0.04–1.70 mD that the average pore size is in a range of 129–145 μm, and the pore throat has a radius of 0.17–0.89 μm. The original oil saturation is found to be 76–83%, whereas the oil recovery factor is 36–62%; 4–27% of the original oil is distributed in pores larger than 100 μm, 50–54% in pores from 10 to 100 μm, and 21–46% in pores and throats smaller than 10 μm. Residual oil saturation is 1–2% in pores larger than 100 μm, 29–64% in pores from 10 to 100 μm, and 34–69% in pores and throats smaller than 10 μm.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it