MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333663214 · doi:10.1021/ef201653u

Propane-Enriched CO<sub>2</sub> Immiscible Flooding For Improved Heavy Oil Recovery

2012· article· en· W2333663214 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peng Luo, Yiping Zhang, Xiaoqi Wang, Sam Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsSolventPropaneOil in placeOil viscosityViscosityPetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryChemical engineeringVolume (thermodynamics)Materials scienceChemistryEnvironmental sciencePetroleumThermodynamicsGeologyOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of heavy oil reservoirs in west-central Saskatchewan, Canada, are thin and marginal, such that they are economically unsuitable for thermal recovery methods. Immiscible gas flooding appears to be highly promising for these underexploited reservoirs. The goal of the research described here is to advance development of cost-effective immiscible gas flooding processes applicable to moderately viscous heavy oils in this region, by improving recovery factors through designing an injection solvent mixture with optimized properties. In this study, two solvents were studied and compared: pure CO 2 and 81 mol % CO 2 + 19 mol % C 3 H 8 . The phase behavior (pressure–volume–temperature (PVT)) and physical properties of a reconstituted live heavy oil with these solvents were measured, respectively. In terms of oil viscosity reduction and swelling, the CO 2 –C 3 H 8 mixture was found to be substantially more effective than CO 2 alone. At about 4 MPa and 21 °C, CO 2 –C 3 H 8 addition reduced the live oil viscosity by 96.5%, compared with 92.6% for CO 2 . As well, the live oil swelled by 10.6% when saturated with the CO 2 –C 3 H 8 mixture, much higher than the 6.8% with CO 2 . Furthermore, a comparative coreflood study of the oil recovery performance using CO 2 alone and the CO 2 –C 3 H 8 mixture at different operating pressures was carried out to assess their respective effectiveness. The obtained oil recovery factor confirmed that the solvent mixture was much more effective than CO 2 alone. At the operating pressure of 4 MPa, the CO 2 –C 3 H 8 mixture recovered 34.2% original oil in place (OOIP) during the water-alternating-gas (WAG) cycles, compared to 22.5% OOIP using CO 2 alone at 4 MPa. The gas utilization factor for CO 2 –C 3 H 8 flooding, however, was only 72% of that for CO 2 -alone flooding. The comparative advantage of the solvent mixture was also apparent in two specially designed radial corefloods, which were conducted to better represent fluids radial flow in heavy oil reservoirs.

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 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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207