Laboratory measurements of solubility and swelling factor for CO<sub>2</sub>/Brine and CO<sub>2</sub>/heavy oil binary systems under low‐medium pressure and temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An extensive experimental study was performed to investigate the effect of various parameters such as temperature, pressure, and crude oil API gravity on the fluid interactions in the binary systems of brine‐CO2 and two heavy oil‐CO2 systems. The solubility of CO2 in 20 000 ppm brine solution was measured at various experimental conditions. The solubility of CO2 and swelling factor, due to the CO2 dissolution, of two heavy crude oil samples (type‐I: °API = 20.44 and type‐II: °API = 15.49) were experimentally measured at various operating conditions. Results showed that the solubility of CO2 in heavy oil increased when the experimental pressure increased, and when the experimental temperature decreased. At a constant pressure of Pexp = 3.44 MPa, the solubility of the CO2 was measured to be 10.13, 5.72 g CO2/100 g oil in the type‐I crude oil when the temperature increased from T = 21 to 45 °C. Increasing the experimental pressure from Pexp = 1.38 MPa to 3.44 MPa at a constant temperature of T = 21 °C increased the solubility of the CO2 from 2.37 to 7.84 g CO2/100 g oil in the type‐II crude oil. The reduction in the oil API gravity had an adverse effect on the CO2 solubility. At a temperature of T = 21 °C and a pressure of Pexp = 3.44 MPa, the CO2 solubility decreased from ∼10.13 in the type‐I oil to 7.84 g CO2/100 g oil in the type‐II oil. The measured values of the swelling factor showed that the type‐I and type‐II crude oils could exhibit a maximum swelling factor of 1.079 and 1.052 at a temperature of T = 21 °C and a pressure of Pexp = 3.44 MPa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".