MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018720574 · doi:10.2118/00-04-tb

Pressure Pulsing: The Ups And Downs of Starting a New Technology

2000· article· en· W2018720574 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maurice B. Dusseault, Brett Davidson, Tim Spanos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringSkepticismWork (physics)Permeability (electromagnetism)ViscosityMechanicsTurbulenceInertial frame of referenceDarcy's lawLawGeologyPhysicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringChemistryGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamicsClassical mechanicsPhilosophyPolitical sciencePorous mediumPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When technology based on new science is started, there can be a lot of skepticism, which is a healthy reaction. The skepticism encountered by PE-TECH as pressure pulsing is gradually introduced has been partly overcome, but only in the Canadian heavy oil industry. Here are some typical remarks we have encountered over the last three years, accompanied by our responses. "This is not predicted by Darcy's Law." This is quite correct since Darcy's Law is a static law and cannot handle inertial effects. For example, look at how Darcy's Law is fudged to handle turbulent flow. "Well, it works in heavy oil, but it won't in light oil." Or, "Our reservoirs are different." Physics is physics; it will work in all liquid-saturated systems, but will have to be optimized in individual cases. "We don't need this because we use horizontal wells." It can be used in many different configurations, and can help horizontal wells just as it does vertical and inclined wells. "It's not the pulsing, it's a relative permeability effect (or permeability increase or viscosity decrease, etc.)." Nope, we've proven otherwise, although in the case of highly viscous oils of large molecular weight, there may be an additive effect of viscosity reduction. "It won't work in consolidated rocks." We're confident of field success; limited laboratory tests indicate that it does indeed work, but we have a lot more testing to do. "Sounds like Cold Fusion to me." Frankly, we were pretty startled ourselves at how large the effect is, but you can do the experiments yourself. "Come back when you have some real field data." We have. We're here. History Pressure pulsing is an emerging technology. Its roots go back several decades; as a rigorous theory, it goes back about 15 years. Russian engineers noticed decades ago that large earthquakes often caused changes in oil well behaviour, usually a short-term rate increase. This was variously ascribed to compaction, shaking loose of particles blocking pore throats, or changes in permeability, viscosity, and capillary entry pressure. However, attempts to use seismic excitation have, to our knowledge, met with failure in China, Canada, and the United States. Senior engineers from western oil companies have examined claims that mechanical vibrations are being used successfully, they appear unconvinced, even after site visits. Also, the numerous articles in the Russian literature, mainly by geophysicists, tend to be mathematicallyopaque, unfathomable in terms of physical processes, based on debatable premises, or without sufficient clear and unequivocal information to allow evaluation. Nevertheless, published Russian data appear convincing, and R&D programs are active in Alberta, USA, and other areas, albeit without much apparent success. We believe we know why: seismic excitation is the wrong type of impulse, of insufficient amplitude, and applied at the wrong place. Pressure pulsing experiments in the laboratory started only in January 1997; in the field, it was first tried in June 1998. PETECH conducted the first commercial applications in workover mode in September 1998, and in full field-wide rate enhancement mode in June 1999.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.018
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207