MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412136312 · doi:10.2118/180933-pa

Solvent-Selection Criteria Based on Diffusion Rate and Mixing Quality for Steam/Solvent Applications in Heavy-Oil and Bitumen Recovery

2016· article· en· W2412136312 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Marciales, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSolventAsphaltMixing (physics)DiffusionViscosityThermal diffusivityMaterials sciencePetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryComposite materialGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Heavy-oil and bitumen recovery requires high recovery factors to offset the extreme high cost of investments and operations. Attention has been given to solvent injection for this purpose, and it has been observed that high recoveries are achievable when it is combined with steam injection. Heavier (“liquid”) solvents (liquid at ambient conditions) are especially becoming more popular because of availability and transportation. High oil prices will allow the application of this kind of technique if a proper design is made to retrieve the injected solvent efficiently. “Liquid” solvents are advantageous because they yield a better-quality mixing (especially with very heavy oils and bitumen) but a lower diffusion rate than lighter solvents such as propane or butane. Despite this understanding, there still is not a clear screening criterion for solvent selection to mitigate both diffusion rate and the quality of the mixture. In this study, two main solvent-selection-criteria parameters—diffusion rate and mixing quality—were considered to evaluate solvent-injection efficiency at different temperatures. An optical method under static conditions and image-processing techniques were proposed to determine 1D diffusivity of liquid solvent into a wide range of oil samples in a capillary tube. This sampling range varies from 40-cp oil to 250-cp oil, for which digital-image treatment was developed. X-ray computerized tomography (CT) was applied for heavier (and darker) oils (viscosity range of 20,000 cp to 400,000 cp). The diffusion coefficients were then computed through nonlinear curve fitting on the basis of an optimization algorithm to ensure that the obtained values were in agreement with available analytical solutions. Next, viscosity measurements and asphaltene precipitation for the same heavy-oil/solvent mixtures were performed to determine the mixing quality. The ideal solvent types for different oil types were determined by using the results from the diffusion-rate and mixing-quality experiments. The experimental and semianalytical outcome of this research would be useful in the determination of the best solvent type for a given oil and in understanding the key factors that influence the quality of mixtures including viscosity reduction and probable asphaltene precipitation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207