MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978322303 · doi:10.2118/164087-pa

Prevention of Acid-Induced Asphaltene Precipitation: A Comparison of Anionic Vs. Cationic Surfactants

2015· article· en· W1978322303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill O’Neil, Darren Maley, Chris Lalchan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsAsphalteneOil shalePrecipitationCationic polymerizationFerricChemistryFlocculationDispersantChemical engineeringCrude oilGeologyPetroleum engineeringInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryDispersion (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the recent proliferation of horizontal drilling specifically targeting oil-bearing reservoirs, high-strength-acid-fracturing treatments in the Beaverhill Lake formation in northern Alberta have increased dramatically in both product volume and number of treatments. The Beaverhill Lake formation is a limestone/calcareous shale that produces a desirable mid- to high-API sweet crude oil. Although the crude oil typically has a low concentration of asphaltenes, the oil is sensitive to acid and/or iron-induced asphaltene precipitation. As the acid strength increases and ferric iron is dissolved into solution, it becomes increasingly difficult to chemically prevent the asphaltenes from precipitating. Acid blends designed to prevent asphaltene precipitation also tend to be emulsifying with the crude oil; therefore, a careful balance between antisludge additives and nonemulsifiers must be found. The objective of this study is to compare anionic and cationic antisludge agents, and to determine if there was an observable benefit in production when using a specific type of antisludge agent in the Beaverhill Lake formation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207