Nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam flooding for enhanced heavy oil recovery: A micro-optical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surfactant flooding is a well-known chemical approach for enhancing oil recovery. Surfactant flooding has the disadvantage that it cannot withstand the hard reservoir conditions. Improvements in oil recovery and release are made possible by the use of nanoparticles and surfactants and CO2 co-injection because they generate stable foam, reduce the interfacial tension (IFT) between water and oil, cause emulsions to spontaneously form, change the wettability of porous media, and change the characteristics of flow. In the current work, the simultaneous injection of SiO2, Al2O3 nanoparticles, anionic surfactant SDS, and CO2 in various scenarios were evaluated to determine the microscopic and macroscopic efficacy of heavy oil recovery. IFT (interfacial tension) was reduced by 44% when the nanoparticles and SDS (2000 ppm) were added, compared to a reduction of roughly 57% with SDS only. SDS-stabilized CO2 foam flooding, however, is unstable due to the adsorption of SDS in the rock surfaces as well as in heavy oil. To assess foam's potential to shift CO2 from the high permeability zone (the thief zone) into the low permeability zone, directly visualizing micromodel flooding was successfully executed (upswept oil-rich zone). Based on typical reservoir permeability fluctuations, the permeability contrast (defined as the ratio of high permeability to low permeability) for the micromodel flooding was selected. However, the results of the experiment demonstrated that by utilizing SDS and nanoparticles, minimal IFT was reached. The addition of nanoparticles to surfactant solutions, however, greatly boosted oil recovery, according to the findings of flooding studies. The ultimate oil recovery was generally improved more by the anionic surfactant (SDS) solution including nanoparticles than by the anionic surfactant (SDS) alone.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".