MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973709535 · doi:10.2118/08-01-22-tn

Understanding the Generation of Dissolved Silica in Thermal Projects: Theoretical Progress

2008· article· en· W1973709535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H.F. Thimm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissolutionSolubilityDissolved silicaQuartzCarbon dioxideChemical engineeringAlkalinityChemistryPetroleum engineeringMineralogyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyOrganic chemistryMetallurgyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The production of silica in thermal petroleum recovery projects is a well-known phenomenon, and considerable efforts for its control are a common feature of facilities engineering in such projects. Recent work related to the generation of silica in SAGD projects has shown that the largest effect on silica production in SAGD is the steam zone pressure. Silica levels in produced water tend to increase with temperature. However, a significant suppressive effect of silica dissolution from quartz sands is provided by the presence of carbon dioxide dissolved in steam condensate. Lesser effects of silica concentration are due to ionic strength of the condensate. The carbon dioxide concentration in the steam condensate is amenable to theoretical prediction, available from recent progress in gas dissolution thermodynamics, and this allows the estimation of one of the major factors responsible for the suppression of produced water silica concentration. Other effects may be due to pH and fluid alkalinity, which are not independent of CO2 concentration. This paper is intended to provide an overview of the progress in obtaining a predictive capability, and to highlight the issues related to appropriate sampling and analytical methods that hinder simple correlations to date. Introduction The effect of temperature on silica dissolution from quartz has been known for a long time. Cowan and Weintritt(1) in their well-known treatise on water-formed scale deposits, cite Kennedy's work(2) and provide convenient tabulations and graphs of silica solubility and temperature. The experimental data for the solubility of silica from quartz are shown in Figure 1. By comparison, the data generated by the SOLMINEQ program of the Alberta Research Council are quite similar (Figure 2), with slightly increased solubilities at lower temperatures, and a slight reduction at higher temperatures. The SOLMINEQ program is a program based on the solution thermodynamic database of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), and operates by a free energy minimization algorithm. Data such as these usually make it mandatory that silica concentrations be reduced in produced water treatment in SAGD schemes, whether the water is recycled for steam generation or injected into a disposal well. Common methods in use are warm or hot lime softeners, MagOx units or acidification schemes. One would expect that apart from temperature, some aspects of produced water chemistry, such as dissolved acid gas content, pH, alkalinity and ionic strength, play a part in controlling the silica content of produced water from SAGD operations, so that the simple solubility curves published by Cowan and Weintritt cannot be used to correctly predict silica concentrations in any given scheme. Temperature Effect The magnitude of the temperature effect has already been shown. The use of the SOLMINEQ program produces results consistent with original experimental data. The use of this program to FIGURE 1: Experimental quartz solubility(2). Available in Full Paper. FIGURE 2: Equilibrium silica, mg/L, as function of steam zone temperature. Available in Full Paper. generate silica solubilities for any given produced water composition is a simple trial and error procedure, as follows:

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207