Oxidation Characteristics of Light Hydrocarbons for Underbalanced Drilling Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation is directly relevant to various applications associated with the safety aspects of underbalanced drilling operations where de-oxygenated air may be co-injected with oil-based drilling fluid. However, de-oxygenated air often still contains up to 5% oxygen by volume. This residual oxygen can react with oil during the drilling process, thereby forming potentially hazardous oxidized hydrocarbons and compromising the safety of drilling operations. This article examines the conditions and processes by which oxidation reactions occur and may be helpful in reducing risk in drilling operations. This project characterizes the oxidation behavior of several oils and a typical oil-based drilling fluid at atmospheric and elevated pressures using thermogravimetry (TG) and pressurized differential scanning calorimetry (PDSC). Tests performed on mineral matrix (core) from the oil reservoirs showed no reactivity in both inert and oxidizing atmospheres. In an inert atmosphere, tests on all hydrocarbon samples showed only vaporization, no reactivity. In an oxidizing environment, the tests on hydrocarbons showed several oxidation regions. The presence of core had no effect on the behavior of the hydrocarbons tested in an inert atmosphere but accelerated the higher temperature oxidation reactions of the oil samples. The oil-based drilling fluid exhibited the opposite effect—the presence of core material retarded the oxidation reactions. This is perhaps due to the presence of an oxygen scavenger reacting with oxygen-containing clays present in the mineral matrix. In all tests performed on mixtures of hydrocarbon and core in oxidizing atmospheres, elevated pressures resulted in acceleration of the lower and higher temperature reaction regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".