MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606944374 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201700350

Surfactant-steam-noncondensible Gas-foam Modeling for SAGD Process in the Heavy Oil Recovery

2017· article· en· W2606944374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhijing Zhou, Lin Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface tensionEmulsionSeparator (oil production)Pulmonary surfactantPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionEnhanced oil recoverySteam-assisted gravity drainageMaterials scienceChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)Oil sandsComposite materialGeologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary SAGD(steam assisted gravity drainage) is a mature technology to recover the heavy oil and oil sands in the Alberta. Owning to the reservoir heterogeneity and fluid properties differences, nonuniform steam chamber formed along the horizontal well leading to lower recovery Foam is dispersion of gas in a continuous water phase with thin films (lamella), acting as a separator. surfactant mobilizes the high viscous oil by emulsification and reduction of interfacial tension.Adding surfactants also lowers the interfacial tension at the water-oil interface and further produces water in oil or oil in water emulsion. In situ emulsion generation is thus another active mechanism that is involved as a result of surfactants presence. Noncondensible gas could enhance the steam foam by reducing the affection of liquid phases condensation and evaporization. Due to the above properties, gravity override is consequently limited.The existence of noncondensible gas contributes to foam stability. The phase behavior for emulsification regulates different relative permeability regimes into the oil flow. We find that adding surfactant,condensable gas and foam contributes to higher production and leads to less steam consumed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207