Foam Formulation for High Temperature SAGD Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In SAGD operations, the steam chamber temperature can be as high as 250°C. Foam formulations that can withstand such high temperature are required for field deployment of foam as conformance control technique. An evaluation of 12 surfactant formulations for their viability as steam foam candidate at chamber temperatures as high as 250°C is presented. Unlike other studies in the literature that used nitrogen for foam generation, methane was employed in this project. This project reveals that strong foam can be formed at 250°C. Also, foam is only generated within a specific range of methane mass quality. Stronger foam was formed when steam and methane were injected simultaneously into the core. Lastly, the existence of residual oil in the core reduced the foam strength. We analyzed the effect of a few parameters on foam strength. Parameters considered include concentration of surfactant, presence of steam as well as methane, mass quality of methane, and residual oil saturation. Laboratory analyses comprising thermal stability, solubility, foam height, adsorption, and coreflood, were conducted. The learnings from this project has the ability to accelerate the application of foam systems in high-temperature SAGD operations to increase conformance, maximize steam usage, and ultimately lead to overall reduction in GHG emissions from SAGD projects.
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".