Extensive experimental investigation of the effect of drainage height and solvent type on the stabilized drainage rate in vapour extraction (VAPEX) process
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low cost of the injected solvent, which can be also recovered and recycled, and the applicability of VAPEX technique in thin reservoirs are among the main advantages of VAPEX process compared to thermal heavy oil recovery techniques. In this research, an extensive experimental investigation is carried out to first evaluate the technical feasibility of utilization of various solvents for VAPEX process. Then the effect of drainage height on the stabilized drainage rate in VAPEX process was studied by conducting series of experiments in two large-scale 2D VAPEX models of 24.5 cm and 47.5 cm heights. Both models were packed with low permeability Ottawa sand (#530) and saturated with a heavy oil sample from Saskatchewan heavy oil reservoirs with viscosity of 5650 mPa s. Propane, butane, methane, carbon dioxide , propane/carbon dioxide (70%/30%) and propane/methane (70%/30%) were considered as respective solvents for the experiments, and a total of twelve VAPEX tests were carried out. Moreover, separate experiments were carried out at the end of each VAPEX experiment to measure the asphaltene precipitation at various locations of the VAPEX models. It was found that injecting propane would result in the highest drainage rate and oil recovery factor. Further analysis of results showed stabilized drainage rate significantly increased in the larger physical model.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it