MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550541226 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22729

Investigation of the minimum miscibility pressure for injection of two different gases into two Iranian oil reservoirs: Experimental and theory

2016· article· en· W2550541226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Moosazadeh, Behnam Keshavarzi, Cyrus Ghotbi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTube (container)MiscibilityMechanicsWork (physics)Petroleum engineeringComputer simulationMaterials scienceSimulationMechanical engineeringEngineeringPolymerPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The results of the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) determination for miscible injection of two gases (CO 2 and an associated gas of one of Iranian gas reservoirs) into two different oil samples from two Iranian oil reservoirs using a slim tube apparatus are presented in this work. For efficient determination of MMP, prior to slim tube experimentation, cell‐to‐cell simulation of the slim tube experiment was performed using a tuned Peng Robinson equation of state as a pre‐experiment and the results were used as initial estimates of MMP to select the pressure steps for the slim tube experiment. Finally, a comparison between the measured MMP values obtained by the slim tube experiments and those calculated by cell‐to‐cell simulation was made. It was shown that the cell‐to‐cell slim tube simulation predicts the results of slim tube experiments with a relative error of less than 6 %. This low error value shows that cell‐to‐cell simulation can replace the slim tube test in the cases where time is a major concern. Moreover, since the slim tube is an expensive and time‐consuming experiment and selecting the pressures to run the test is very important, cell‐to‐cell simulation can help us select the pressures for performing a slim tube experiment.

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 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207