Coreflood Studies Examine New Technologies That Minimize Intervention Throughout Well Life Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary With the development of more and more subsea fields, the challenge for scale-inhibitor squeeze treatments is to reduce intervention frequency by extending squeeze treatment lifetime while con-comitantly reducing any potential damage in both low water-cut and high water-cut wells. This paper discusses the technical problems and examines new technologies for treatment of such production wells through their life cycle. This paper covers the findings from late 2001 through early 2002. Because even newer technologies have been developed since the writing of this paper, it should be read as the history of technological development. Scale control technology available to control scale formation within the reservoir and near-wellbore area of production wells will be outlined with a focus on the current developing technology to control scale within low water-cut wells. Moreover, this paper shows that the new technical area of emulsion-scale-inhibitor-delivery systems, originally designed to control scale within low water-cut wells, has applications in both low and high water-cut wells. This study assists in developing an understanding of the mechanism of interaction of emulsion-based products—in particular, the impact of the level of water saturation within the core system. In addition, it demonstrates that the emulsion particles are retained in the core matrix during both crude and brine flowback. This paper indicates that the emulsion product offers the potential for extremely long squeeze lifetimes with minimal damage in oil-production wells with rising water cut. It also demonstrates how different technologies have their own place in the life cycle of a production well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".