Experimental Comparative Investigation of Hot Solvent/Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage in Oil Sand Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-hexane as the solvent. Micro seepage characteristics of the hot solvent and steam and the remaining oil distribution of the solvent and steam drive are investigated through microseepage experiments. The expanding process of the solvent/steam chamber and production performance of HS-SAGD and SAGD are investigated through macrosimulation experiments. The study found that the sweep efficiency of hot solvent is higher than that of steam at the same temperature due to the small interfacial tension between the condensed solvent and heated bitumen. Due to the severe gravity segregation, the steam accumulated at the top of the model during the 2-D physical simulation experiment, which results in the huge heat loss at the top of the model. The temperature of the steam chamber is significantly lower than that of the solvent chamber. The oil recovery of 200 °C hot solvent vapor is twice as much as that of 300 °C steam owing to the different drainage mechanisms of the HS-AGD and SAGD. In SAGD, only heat transfer reduces the viscosity of oil sand bitumen. The components of oil produced in SAGD have little difference compared with that of the original bitumen. In HS-AGD, both mass transfer and the sensible heat transfer reduce the viscosity of oil sand bitumen. The in situ asphaltene precipitation induced by heated-solvent extraction also upgrades the bitumen. The results of component analysis show that in HS-AGD, the content of heavy components in the oil sand bitumen is obviously reduced. This paper aims to reveal the oil drainage mechanism of HS-AGD and SAGD from the macroscopic and microscopic view and to provide theoretical guidance for the field application of this technology.
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".