A Novel Experimental Method CCEC and Modelling of Methane Dissolution and Exsolution in Heavy Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The phase behavior and physical properties of heavy oil have been considered of great importance during cold production process. In this study, constant composition expansion and compression (CCEC) tests were performed to measure and evaluate the live oil expansion and compression under various temperatures and pressures conditions through a PVT apparatus. The live oil viscosity and density were also obtained from the the experiments. CCEC tests were conducted using the recombined live oil (with specified gas-oil ratio) in the PVT cell without mixing by utilizing three different constant volume change rates (i.e. "Fast Rate", 1.5 cc/min; "Moderate Rate", 0.015 cc/min; and "Slow Rate", 0.0003 cc/min) at 75°C and 15°C. During the expansion period, the total volume was monitored continuously until it reaches the cell maximum. Following the expansion process, the oil and gas were compressed back to the initial pressure following the same rates as the expansion stage. The P-V diagram has been plotted according to the PVT data, therefore pseudo-bubblepoint pressure was able to be determined based on the slope change of the P-V curve. It is found that pseudo-bubblepoint pressure determined at 75°C is higher than that of 15°C. For different volume expansion rates, a faster rate results in a lower determined pseudo-bubblepoint pressure, indicating a strong foamy oil behavior. On the other hand, however, the volume compression rate did not significantly affect the tendency of total volume reduction curve regarding the PVT experiments. The results obtained from the current study will facilitate industry to make better design for heavy oil reservoir development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".