MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999814743 · doi:10.2118/80271-ms

Identification of Mechanisms and Parameters of Formation Damage Associated with Chemical Flooding

2003· article· en· W1999814743 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Patino, Faruk Civan, Subhash Shah, D. R. Zornes, Eugene A. Spinler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)DissolutionGeologyPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a practical methodology and its verification for determination of the mechanisms and parameters of chemically induced formation damage. It is based on interpretation of laboratory core flood tests by diagnostic straight-line plotting schemes. Laboratory tests were conducted to measure the permeability impairment and effluent conditions as a function of time by flooding sandstone and limestone outcrop rock samples with various alkaline solutions (NaOH, KOH, NaSiO4) and alcohol (ethanol) as might be used for improved oil recovery. The single-phase permeability variation data were plotted according to prescribed diagnostic straight-line plotting schemes proposed by Wojtanowicz et al. and Civan. Plots that result in satisfactory straight-line trends reveal the predominate mechanisms of the formation damage. Further, the values of the parameters of the governing formation damage processes are determined from the intercept and slope of the straight-lines. Higher pH solutions were observed to have caused greater reductions in rock permeability. Civan's model better described the permeability variation due to scale dissolution and precipitation processes. The Wojtanowicz et al. model identified the formation damage mechanisms as pore surface deposition and sweeping. Different rock damage conditions were observed for the initial and the later test periods, indicating that more than one formation damage mechanism was involved. The analysis of the same experimental data reveals that a numerical model such as UTCHEM will require significantly more information to perform a similar analysis of the laboratory flood results. However, the diagnostic equations provide a practical and rapid means for the determination of the formation damage mechanisms. The methodology developed in this paper can be used for rapid detection and quantification of the formation damage mechanisms from core tests. The technique can be useful in the design of alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) and/or micellar flooding chemical systems for field applications.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Symposium on Oilfield ChemistrySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207