MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791042980 · doi:10.2118/189794-ms

An Analytical Model Explanation for Recovering Oil from Organic Nanopores of Shales

2018· article· en· W2791042980 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Yang, Yanming Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsNanoporeAdsorptionCarbon nanotubeOctaneSurface tensionMaterials scienceImbibitionChemical engineeringOil shaleHysteresisNanotechnologyChemical physicsChemistryOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsGeologyCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous oil/water counter-current imbibition experiments on shale and tight rock samples showed that oil can be spontaneously recovered by water. The pore size distribution analysis showed the samples are composed of 2nm to 10nm organic nanopores. The oil recoveries range from 10% to 25%, which cannot be explained by the classical imbibition models. We hypothesize that the recoverable oil are the part of the adsorbed oil in small organic nanopores, the density of which is higher than the bulk oil density. We test this hypothesis by analytical modeling the number density profiles and estimating the free energy of oil and water molelcules in the organic nanopores of the target samples, ranging from 2nm to 10nm. We apply the proposed model on octane and water molecules in carbon nanotubes to investigate the driving force of the oil/water counter-current imbibitions in the organic nanopores of the samples. Results show that the number densities of the octane molecules in the adsorbed region of 2nm to 10nm nanopores are higher than the bulk octane value. As a result, the estimated surface tensions of the adsorbed octane molecules in 2nm to 6nm carbon nanotubes are higher than the surface tension of the bulk water. This reveals the driving force of the adsorbed oil in the small organic nanopores is positive during the oil/water counter-current imbibition experiments on shales. In addition, we compare the surface tension of the octane and water molecules in the carbon nanotubes. This result presents the driving force of the adsorbed octane is higher than that of the adsorbed water. These results indicate the part of the adsorbed oil in small organic nanopores can be spontaneously displaced by the water. Particularly, the estimated oil recoveries in the carbon nanotubes increase as the pore size increasese to 3nm, and then decrease as the pore size increase to 6nm. Based on the pore size distribution of the samples, the calculated oil recoveries of 3 samples show a good agreement with the previous oil/water counter-current imbibition experimental results. These results suggest that most of the recoverable oil of shales and tight rocks during the imbibieion experiments are produced from small organic nanopores.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→