MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408266506 · doi:10.2118/223985-ms

The Impact of Operational Parameters on Bitumen Recovery from Oil-Sand During Cyclic Solvent Injection- A Cold Lake Experimental Study

2025· article· en· W4408266506 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Mohammadi, Hassan Dehghanpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltPetroleum engineeringSolventOil sandsEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyChemistryComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents a standard laboratory protocol to evaluate the impact of operational parameters on oil-propane interactions during bitumen recovery from oil-sand samples using the Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI) method. The main objective of this study is to address the existing gaps in the literature by answering the following key questions: (1) What is the impact of injection pressure and depletion rate on oil recovery in the absence of an extended soaking period? (2) What are the dominant oil recovery mechanisms under various operational conditions in the absence of soaking period? (3) Is an extended soaking stage necessary to enhance bitumen recovery during CSI? To answer these questions, we conduct six CSI experiments using a custom-built visualization cell equipped with sight glasses on both sides and a high-resolution camera to visualize the oil-propane interactions. We test three injection pressures including 113 psi (vapor propane, C3,V), 123 psi (vapor-liquid propane, C3,V-L), and 210 psi (liquid propane, C3,L), and two depletion rates of 0.5 psi/min and 5 psi/min. The results show that increasing injection pressure enhances oil recovery primarily due to more significant solution gas drive and foamy oil flow mechanisms. Oil recovery at 210 psi injection pressure and 5 psi/min depletion rate is 18.2% of the initial oil in place (IOIP), while that at 123 psi and 113 psi is 11.1% and 2.1%, respectively. In addition, increasing the depletion rate increases the oil recovery primarily due to more sustainable solution gas drive and foamy oil flow mechanisms. However, the impact of depletion rate on oil recovery is more pronounced where liquid propane exists in the visualization cell, and the oil recovery does not change considerably at 113 psi with respect to depletion rate due to a lack of solution gas drive and foamy oil flow mechanisms. Besides, comparing the results of this study with our previous study (Mohammadi et al. 2023) reveals that at high pressure (i.e. 210 psi), a soaking period does not improve oil recovery due to asphaltene deposition at the sand face. However, at low pressure (i.e. 113 psi), oil recovery is more significant in the presence of a five-day soaking stage compared with that in the absence of a soaking stage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→