Combined Cyclic Solvent Injection and Waterflooding in the Post-Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, cyclic solvent injection (CSI) and waterflooding (WF) were combined and studied to maximize their technical synergy and optimize the enhanced heavy oil recovery (EHOR) in the post-cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) reservoirs. The original heavy oil sample was collected from the Colony formation in western Canada. The PVT data and viscosities of CH 4 /CO 2 /C 3 H 8 -saturated heavy oil were measured at different equilibrium pressures and T res = 21 °C. A total of eight sandpacked laboratory tests were conducted to study and compare four different EHOR processes after the primary production: CSI, CSI + WF, simultaneous CSI + WF, and WF + CSI. In the last three processes, WF was applied after, simultaneously with, and prior to the CSI production, respectively. Three different pressure drawdown rates (6.8, 12.5, and 25.0 kPa/min) and two different solvents (CO 2 and C 3 H 8 ) were used to determine their specific effects on CSI + WF. The experimental results showed that CSI + WF had the highest heavy oil recovery factor (RF) of 30.1% in comparison with 28.9, 25.9, and 24.3% for WF + CSI, simultaneous CSI + WF, and CSI, respectively, when CO 2 was used in CSI. The intermediate pressure drawdown rate of 12.5 kPa/min resulted in the highest heavy oil RF in CO 2 -CSI + WF. In addition, C 3 H 8 was found to be a more effective extracting solvent than CO 2 due to its more favorable PVT properties and larger heavy oil viscosity reduction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".