Clarifications on Oil/Heavy Oil Recovery Under Ultrasonic Radiation Through Core and 2D Visualization Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our previous research on the effects of ultrasonic waves on oil recovery conducted at the University of Alberta had showed that capillarity and interfacial tension (IFT) might be responsible for the observed improvements in incremental oil recovery. To investigate this further, Hele-Shaw type experiments had been performed with the same fluid pairs, and significant alterations in the morphology of the fingers with ultrasonic waves were observed. Although the results seem encouraging, questions about the mechanism and effective parameters causing additional recovery still remain. To analyze the influence of parameters other than IFT and capillary forces, we conducted capillary imbibition experiments on cylindrical Berea sandstone core samples under ultrasonic radiation in this paper. Through this experimental scheme, we focused on (a) the effect of initial water saturation for different wettability rocks, (b) oil viscosity, and (c) matrix wettability. The cores were placed into imbibition cells where they contacted with aqueous phase. Every experiment was conducted with and without ultrasonic radiation for comparison. Different intensities of ultrasonic waves were tested as well. To profoundly investigate the acoustic interaction between rock and fluid, we further performed some visualization experiments. We used 2-D glass bead models to clarify the effects of ultrasonic waves on oil displacement process for different oil viscosities and matrix wettability through comparative analysis. The qualitative and quantitative observations and analyses are expected to shed light on the further investigations in the use of in-situ recovery of oil/heavy-oil as well as surface extraction. Introduction Primary production of petroleum by natural reservoir energy does not produce a large fraction of original oil in place. To increase the oil recovery from the reservoirs after conventional secondary recovery, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques such as thermal, chemical and gas injection, should be implemented. In addition to those traditional EOR techniques, unconventional EOR methods have received a great deal of attention, especially after the recent increase in oil prices. Acoustic energy was considered as one of those unconventional EOR methods. Studies have been conducted to understand the effects of acoustic energy on oil recovery over the last four decades. Duhon and Campbell1 performed waterflood tests through cores under ultrasonic energy and showed that the ultrasonic energy improved the oil recovery and displacement efficiency in the cores. Beresnev and Johnson2 reported a critical analysis of the works done in this area by the early 1990's and provided a comprehensive review of the seismic and ultrasonic stimulation studies. They concluded that the elastic wave and seismic excitations to porous media affect permeability and production rate in most cases. Kuznetsov et al. 3 reviewed seismic techniques for enhanced oil recovery. They performed capillary pressure measurements with and without vibration and observed an increase in oil/water relative permeabilities and also oil recovery after elastic vibration. They concluded that this increase is due to fines removal by vibration. Roberts et al. 4 applied mechanical stresses to rock samples which were placed inside a core holder.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".