Scaling Criteria for Hybrid Steam-Solvent Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scaling groups for hybrid steam-solvent recovery processes are presented in this paper. A brief discussion of the derivation of the scaling groups is given first. Then an examination of the comparative behavior of these scaling groups at different scales is provided using reservoir simulation for the example of a high solvent load steam-butane gravity drainage process (i.e., steam-butane hybrid (SBH)). Scaling groups were derived for hybrid steam-solvent recovery processes by inspectional analysis using governing equations for multi-phase flow in porous media. The effects of key mechanisms in these processes (diffusion, dispersion, advection and capillary pressure) were examined within the context of the derived scaling groups using reservoir simulation of SBH at three different geometric scales, ranging from the laboratory scale through a semi-field scale to the field scale, for one specific set of operating conditions. The scaling groups were used to analyse and interpret the numerical results. The scaling groups were characterized according to the physical mechanisms from which they were derived. The intent of this analysis was to determine which of the mechanisms tend to be most important to the SBH process at different geometric scales. It is clear from a cursory examination of the scaling groups that all of the scaling groups representing the behavior of the SBH process cannot be satisfied when the geometric scale is changed from the laboratory scale to the field scale. The results of the study also indicate that the Pujol and Boberg scaling criteria for thermal processes seem to provide a reasonable approach for scaling SBH, when they are adapted to include the effects of dispersion. The influence of capillary pressure was secondary to other mechanisms involved in the process. It was evident from the simulations that the influence of dispersion was much more pronounced than diffusion for the solvent loading that was considered. Further, it was found that mechanical dispersity must be scaled with length to scale this mechanism appropriately in the reservoir simulator that was used in this study (CMG STARS™). As a final observation, the influence of capillary pressure was secondary to other mechanisms involved in the process. Few studies on scaling high solvent loading hybrid steam-solvent processes have been undertaken. Using reservoir simulation to study scaling groups for these processes is a novel approach to this subject. Understanding the scalability of hybrid steam-solvent processes from the laboratory scale to the field scale would improve the capability of laboratory experiments to represent the performance of these recovery processes at the field scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".