Quantifying Oil-Recovery Mechanisms during Natural-Gas Huff ‘n’ Puff Experiments on Ultratight Core Plugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Despite promising natural gas huff ‘n’ puff (HnP) field-pilot results, the dominant oil-recovery mechanisms during this process are poorly understood. We conduct systematic natural-gas (C1 and a mixture of C1/C2 with the molar ratio of 70:30) HnP experiments on an ultratight core plug collected from the Montney tight-oil formation, under reservoir conditions (P = 137.9 bar and T = 50°C). We used a custom-designed visualization cell to experimentally evaluate mechanisms controlling gas transport into the plug during injection and soaking phases and oil recovery during the whole process. The tests also allow us to investigate effects of gas composition and initial differential pressure between injected gas and the plug (ΔPi = Pg−Po) on the gas-transport and oil-recovery mechanisms. Moreover, we performed a Péclet number, NPe, analysis to quantify the contribution of each transport mechanism during the soaking period. We found that advective-dominated transport is the mechanism responsible for the transport of gas into the plug at early times of the soaking period (NPe = 1.58 to 3.03). When the soaking progresses, NPe ranges from 0.26 to 0.62, indicating the dominance of molecular diffusion. The advective flow caused by ΔPi during gas injection and soaking leads to improved gas transport into the plug. Total system compressibility, oil swelling, and vaporization of oil components into the gas phase are the recovery mechanisms observed during gas injection and soaking, while gas expansion is the main mechanism during depressurization phase. Overall, gas expansion is the dominant mechanism, followed by total system compressibility, oil swelling, and vaporization. During the “puff” period, the expansion and flow of diffused gas drag the oil along its flowpaths, resulting in a significant flow of oil and gas observed on the surface of the plug. The enrichment of injected gas by 30-mol% C2 enhances the transport of gas into the plug and increases oil recovery compared to pure C1 cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".