MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905308532 · doi:10.2118/193771-ms

Does Polymer's Viscoelasticity Influence Heavy Oil Sweep Efficiency and Injectivity at 1ft/Day?

2018· article· en· W2905308532 on OpenAlex
Madhar Sahib Azad, Japan Trivedi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryRheologyMaterials scienceExtensional viscosityViscoelasticityPolymerShear thinningRheometerShear rateComposite materialViscosityPetroleum engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For heavy oil recovery applications, mobility control is more important than interfacial tension (IFT) reduction and therefore, importance should be given to the recovery of remaining mobile oil by enhanced sweep efficiency. While the relative role of polymer's viscosity and elasticity on capillary-trapped residual light oil recovery has been studied extensively, their role on the sweeping the mobile viscous oil has not been explored. Injectivity is vital for heavy oil recovery applications and polymer selection criteria are done solely based on shear rheology. In this paper, the influence of viscous (shear) resistance and elastic (extensional) resistance of viscoelastic polymer on the mobile heavy oil recovery and injectivity is investigated through the combination of bulk shear/extensional rheology and single phase, and multiphase core flood experiments at typical reservoir flooding rate of 1 ft/day. Two polymer solutions with different concentration and salinity are selected such that low molecular weight (Mw) polymer (HPAM 3130) provides higher shear resistance than high Mw polymer (HPAM 3630). Extensional characterization of these two polymer solutions performed using capillary breakup extensional rheometer revealed that HPAM 3630 provided higher extensional resistance than HPAM 3130. The results show that the behavior of polymers in extension and shear is completely different. Two multiphase and two single-phase experiments are conducted at low flux rate to investigate the role of extensional viscosity on mobile heavy oil recovery and high flux rates on injectivity. After 1 PV of polymer injections, higher concentration and lower Mw HPAM 3130 contributes to ~17% higher incremental recovery factor over lower concentration and higher Mw HPAM 3630. The core scale pressure drop generated by HPAM 3130 is more than twice the pressure drop generated by HPAM 3630. Under low flux rate conditions at the core scale, shear forces dominate and displacing fluid with higher shear viscosity contribute to better sweep. HPAM 3630 exhibits shear thickening phenomenon and possess the apparent viscosity of ~ 90 cP at the flux rate of ~90 ft/day. Whereas HPAM 3130 continued showing shear thinning and has the apparent viscosity of around ~70 cP at ~ 90 ft/day. This signifies the role of extension rheology on the injectivity at higher flux rates. Results revealed that while extensional rheological role towards sweeping the mobile heavy oil recovery at low flux is lesser when compared to shear role, its negative role on the polymer injectivity is very significant. Polymer selection criteria for heavy oil recovery applications should incorporate extensional rheological parameters.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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