Laboratory investigation of oil viscosity effect during carbonated water injection: Comparison of secondary and tertiary recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although the effect of viscosity on oil recovery is well established, no systematic investigation has been implemented regarding the effect of oil viscosity changes on performance of carbonated water injection (CWI). In this study, the performance of CWI with different oil viscosities and rock wettability was investigated through two main series of high‐pressure core flooding experiments on both clean and aged sand. The results obtained demonstrate that the capability of carbonated water to enhance oil recovery for both secondary and tertiary flooding is significantly greater versus that for water flooding. The creation of a low resistance flow channel and low oil recovery in water flooding is compensated for by CO 2 diffusion and subsequent viscosity reduction and oil swelling in heavy and light oils. The results of the aged sand experiments showed that changing the wettability towards mixed wet caused ultimate reduction in oil recovery in each experiment, compared to the similar one in clean sand. However, it was observed that the amount of oil recovered after breakthrough compared to that in clean sand was increased, which showed the capacity of CW for enhanced oil recovery through alteration of wettability.
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".