Analytical Solution of Chemical Flooding in Heterogeneous Non-Communicating Layers With a Focus on Low Salinity Water Flooding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As an enhanced oil recovery method (EOR), chemical flooding has been implemented intensively for some years. Low Salinity WaterFlooding (LSWF) is a method that has become increasingly attractive. The prediction of reservoir behaviour can be made through numerical simulations and greatly helps with field management decisions. Simulations can be costly to run however and also incur numerical errors. Historically, analytical solutions were developed for the flow equations for waterflooding conditions, particularly for non-communicating strata. These have not yet been extended to chemical flooding which we do here, particularly for LSWF. Dispersion effects within layers also affect these solutions and we include these in this work. Using fractional flow theory, we derive a mathematical solution to the flow equations for a set of layers to predict fluid flow and solute transport. Analytical solutions tell us the location of the lead (formation) waterfront in each layer. Previously, we developed a correction to this to include the effects of numerical and physical dispersion, based on one dimensional models. We used a similar correction to predict the location of the second waterfront in each layer which is induced by the chemical's effect on mobility. In this work we show that in multiple non-communicating layers, material balance can be used to deduce the inter-layer relationships of the various fronts that form. This is based on similar analysis developed for waterflooding although the calculations are more complex because of the development of multiple fronts. The result is a predictive tool that we compare to numerical simulations and the precision is very good. Layers with contrasting petrophysical properties and wettability are considered. We also investigate the relationship between the fractional flow, effective salinity range, salinity dispersion and salinity retardation. This work allows us to predict fluids and solute behaviour in reservoirs with non-communicating strata without running a simulator. The recovery factor and vertical sweeping efficiency are also very predictable. This helps us to upscale LSWF by deriving pseudo relative permeability based on our extension of fractional flow and solute transport into such 2D systems.
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".