Experimental and Numerical Modeling Study of Gravity Drainage Considering Asphaltene Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental investigation of gas-assisted gravity drainage (GAGD) performance while taking into account the effects of asphaltene deposition. The experiments were conducted at high pressures and high temperature (15–37 MPa and 102 °C) using carbonate cores and real reservoir fluids in the absence of water saturation. An 85% methane-enriched hydrocarbon gas mixture was employed as an injection fluid in the laboratory runs. The final recovery factor for a fairly tall core was 52% of the original oil at immiscible conditions during hydrocarbon gas injection when the operating pressure and the amount of injected gas were 28.3 MPa and 1.2 pore volume, respectively. In all of the experiments, the total amount of asphaltene deposition was less than 2 wt % of the original oil and no considerable reduction in permeability was found. A numerical two-phase (gas–oil) simulator coupled with a deposition model was also developed to evaluate the importance of different parameters contributing to the final recovery. There was a good agreement between the modeling and experimental results, showing an average error percentage lower than 5%. This study can aid the prediction of the performance of gas injection processes experiencing asphaltene deposition and also aid in proper design of gravity drainage-assisted enhanced oil recovery methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".