MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979756467 · doi:10.2118/198041-ms

Visual Analysis of SAGD with Chemical Additives

2019· article· en· W2979756467 on OpenAlexaff
Jingjing Huang, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringPulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) has been proven as an effective technology to enhance heavy oil/bitumen recovery. The main shortcoming of this method is its inefficiency, a result of high water and energy consumption. As a solution to SAGD efficiency improvement, we propose the addition of chemicals resulting in higher recovery and reduced steam consumption. The objective of this paper is to screen new generation chemicals as additives and study the mechanisms and optimum injection strategies. This screening was achieved through Hele-Shaw type macroscopic visual experiments. We previously screened a wide variety of chemical additives (Bruns and Babadagli 2017, 2018) for steam flooding. As a continuation of this work, these chemicals were tested for SAGD conditions using a new visual experimental design where the optimal injection strategies were identified, eventually providing a reference for the selection of chemical additives for field applications. 11 conventional and new generation chemical additives (heptane, biodiesel, DME, LTS-18, Tween 80, Span 80, Novelfroth 190, ionic liquid (BMMMIM BF4), silicon dioxide nanoparticle, DES9, and DES11) were selected based on both their strong thermal stability and enhanced oil recovery capability. The recovery improvement mechanisms for the different chemical additives and different injection strategies were identified through flow characteristics, emulsifying ability, viscosity reduction capability, and wettability alteration. Simultaneously, the mechanisms were studied from a macro perspective via analyzing areal sweep efficiency and microscopic oil displacement efficiency together with observing the images acquired during the process. Three different injection strategies were applied for each chemical: (1) chemicals were injected at the beginning, (2) in the middle, and (3) at the end of the steam injection. The chemical additives played different roles in recovery improvement, and different chemical addition strategies yielded different mechanisms. Heptane exhibited extraordinary characteristics with maximum "steam saving" (34.52%) when the middle injection strategy was applied and maximum ultimate oil recovery (64.75%) was obtained for the end injection strategy due to the ability to reduce the viscosity of heavy oil by dissolving around the chamber edge. Steamflooding with Novelfroth 190 showed an excellent performance for the middle and end injection strategies due to its ability to develop rapid oil drainage "channels". The addition of surfactant LST-18 presented the ability to improve the EOR by forming emulsions. Additionally, the distributions of the steam chamber in the Hele-Shaw cell were different due to the changed flow characteristics when the same chemical additive was injected at different times, thus showing the ability to reduce viscosity and form emulsions with different strengths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207