Solvent Screening Study for a Post CHOPS Cyclic Solvent Injection Pilot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In preparation for a field pilot of cyclic solvent injection (CSI) on two depleted cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) wells, a series of oilsands coreflood experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of various commercially available solvents and make a solvent recommendation for the pilot. Oil recovery and solvent recovery were the key performance indicators used to compare CSI effectiveness of each solvent blend. The operating pressure for each test was kept relatively constant for each solvent blend tested. Tested solvents included blends of methane/propane, carbon dioxide/propane, methane/ethane, 100% ethane, and nitrogen. Sensitivities for depletion rate and blowdown pressure are also presented. Overall the 100% ethane test performed the best with the highest oil recovery and solvent recovery in the fewest cycles. Due to the lack of commercial ethane supply and the industry experience with methane/propane in Husky Edam’s CSI pilot, a methane/propane blend was recommended for the field pilot in Manatokan East near Bonnyville Alberta Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".