MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794019864 · doi:10.1515/revce-2017-0008

A review on steam-solvent processes for enhanced heavy oil/bitumen recovery

2018· review· en· W2794019864 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Fayazi, Apostolos Kantzas

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionEnhanced oil recoverySolventPetroleumAsphaltProcess engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Steam injection is widely used for heavy oil and bitumen recovery. The advantage of this process is its high recovery factor and its high oil production rate. However, the high production rate is associated with excessive energy consumption, carbon dioxide generation, and expensive post-production water treatment. Some of these disadvantages are overcome or reduced by the addition of solvent mixtures to steam. The steam-solvent processes are complex oil displacement methods involving simultaneous heat, mass, and fluid transport. These processes are not clearly understood despite their apparent importance to the oil industry. Systematic studies are essential in the design, analysis, and evaluation of the steam-solvent processes as well as in mathematical simulation. These studies provide valuable insights for petroleum engineers to improve the oil recovery efficiency when applied in a reservoir. Results of these processes are scattered in many publications over more than 40 years and are not readily available for most petroleum engineers. The purpose of the paper is to present a review of current knowledge and available data, and to delineate the steam-solvent processes.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Chemical EngineeringSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207