Core Flood Study of a New Emulsified Acid with Reservoir Cores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The main objective of well stimulation has been to create wormholes or fractures in order to bypass the damaged zone and enhance the permeability in the near-wellbore area. Regular HCl was the main stimulation fluid. However, at high temperatures, both reaction and corrosion rates become very high and regular HCl loses its advantages. There are many alternatives for regular HCl; emulsified acid is one of the available alternatives for regular HCl. In the present work, an emulsified acid system was used formulated using a cationic surfactant. This system was tested using reservoir cores obtained from a carbonate reservoir. The core samples were analyzed using CAT scan to study the presences of vugs or channels, and to determine the presence of anhydrite. Small samples of the cores were analyzed using the SEM technique. A series of core flood tests were conducted using 15 wt% HCl emulsified acid systems formulated using 1.0 vol% emulsifier. The acid volume fraction was 0.7, and all experiments were performed at temperature of 220°F. The acid injection rate ranged from 1.0 to 10 cm3/min. After acid treatment is accomplished, the cores were CAT scanned to study the number and distribution of wormholes. Samples of the effluent fluid were collected during the core flooding experiment. These collected samples were analyzed using the ICP, to determine the calcium and magnesium concentrations. The CAT scan of the cores obtained from a carbonate reservoir showed a great heterogeneity. The static test for solubility of rocks in regular 15 wt% HCl, indicated that the rocks has a high solubility in acid and the need to use an effective retarded acid system. From the coreflood study, there is an optimum injection rate for an emulsified acid system when it was tested reservoir cores, and it was found to be in the range from 5 to 7 cm3/min. The emulsified acid system can be used effectively, with no face dissolution, at low and high injection rates. For high permeability cores, the final permeability enhancement (ratio of final to initial permeability) increased with increasing the injection rate.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".