MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2018720574 · doi:10.2118/00-04-tb

Pressure Pulsing: The Ups And Downs of Starting a New Technology

2000· article· en· W2018720574 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPetroleum engineeringSkepticismWork (physics)Permeability (electromagnetism)ViscosityMechanicsTurbulenceInertial frame of referenceDarcy's lawLawGeologyPhysicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringChemistryGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamicsClassical mechanicsPhilosophyPolitical sciencePorous mediumPorosity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract When technology based on new science is started, there can be a lot of skepticism, which is a healthy reaction. The skepticism encountered by PE-TECH as pressure pulsing is gradually introduced has been partly overcome, but only in the Canadian heavy oil industry. Here are some typical remarks we have encountered over the last three years, accompanied by our responses. "This is not predicted by Darcy's Law." This is quite correct since Darcy's Law is a static law and cannot handle inertial effects. For example, look at how Darcy's Law is fudged to handle turbulent flow. "Well, it works in heavy oil, but it won't in light oil." Or, "Our reservoirs are different." Physics is physics; it will work in all liquid-saturated systems, but will have to be optimized in individual cases. "We don't need this because we use horizontal wells." It can be used in many different configurations, and can help horizontal wells just as it does vertical and inclined wells. "It's not the pulsing, it's a relative permeability effect (or permeability increase or viscosity decrease, etc.)." Nope, we've proven otherwise, although in the case of highly viscous oils of large molecular weight, there may be an additive effect of viscosity reduction. "It won't work in consolidated rocks." We're confident of field success; limited laboratory tests indicate that it does indeed work, but we have a lot more testing to do. "Sounds like Cold Fusion to me." Frankly, we were pretty startled ourselves at how large the effect is, but you can do the experiments yourself. "Come back when you have some real field data." We have. We're here. History Pressure pulsing is an emerging technology. Its roots go back several decades; as a rigorous theory, it goes back about 15 years. Russian engineers noticed decades ago that large earthquakes often caused changes in oil well behaviour, usually a short-term rate increase. This was variously ascribed to compaction, shaking loose of particles blocking pore throats, or changes in permeability, viscosity, and capillary entry pressure. However, attempts to use seismic excitation have, to our knowledge, met with failure in China, Canada, and the United States. Senior engineers from western oil companies have examined claims that mechanical vibrations are being used successfully, they appear unconvinced, even after site visits. Also, the numerous articles in the Russian literature, mainly by geophysicists, tend to be mathematicallyopaque, unfathomable in terms of physical processes, based on debatable premises, or without sufficient clear and unequivocal information to allow evaluation. Nevertheless, published Russian data appear convincing, and R&D programs are active in Alberta, USA, and other areas, albeit without much apparent success. We believe we know why: seismic excitation is the wrong type of impulse, of insufficient amplitude, and applied at the wrong place. Pressure pulsing experiments in the laboratory started only in January 1997; in the field, it was first tried in June 1998. PETECH conducted the first commercial applications in workover mode in September 1998, and in full field-wide rate enhancement mode in June 1999.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,889
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,387

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,209
Écart entre enseignants0,202 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle