MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414227695 · doi:10.2118/227228-ms

Optimizing Steam Injection for Eco-Friendly Heavy Oil Recovery: A Pore-Scale Visualization of Chemical Additive Effects

2025· article· en· W4414227695 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jingjing Huang, Tayfun Babadagli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionResidual oilOil sandsEnhanced oil recoverySteam-assisted gravity drainageCarbon fibersBoiler (water heating)Porous mediumEutectic system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is the primary method for in-situ extraction of heavy oil and bitumen in Canada. However, it (as well as other steam injection methods) suffers from low efficiency, high water and energy consumption, and significant environmental impact. Adding chemicals to steam offers a potential solution by enhancing oil recovery while reducing carbon emissions through lower steam usage. Our previous studies have shown that deep eutectic solvents (DES) and thermally stable non-ionic surfactants improve steam chamber sweep efficiency and microscopic displacement efficiency, respectively. However, their mechanisms and effects in porous media, especially at the pore scale, remain unclear. This study explores the micro-displacement mechanisms of these chemical additives. A porous medium model was created by packing glass beads between two plexiglass plates, which was then saturated with heavy oil at a slow injection rate. The research focused on steam chamber growth dynamics, physicochemical changes at the oil-steam-water-rock interface, and their impact on oil drainage. By comparing oil recovery efficiency, energy efficiency, and carbon intensity of SAGD with and without chemical additives, the effects of DES (formulated in our labs and named as DES 11) and Novelfroth (a commercial non-ionic surfactant) on steam injection efficiency were evaluated. The results demonstrate that DES11 and Novelfroth 190 enhance the recovery rate by 31.1% and 37%, respectively, while reducing carbon emission intensity to one-third to one-half of conventional SAGD. However, their underlying mechanisms differ. Also, the introduction of these chemical additives significantly altered the state of residual oil compared to the base case. Ultimately, the improvement in oil recovery per unit of steam injected in the chemical cases was quantified and linked to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during steam injection.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→