MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032286460 · doi:10.2118/1213-0034-jpt

Fluid-Pulse Technology Boosts Oil Recovery

2013· article· en· W2032286460 on OpenAlex
Brett Davidson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum industryPetroleumPetroleum engineeringOil productionFossil fuelPulse (music)Production (economics)Natural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceBusinessGeologyEngineeringEconomicsWaste managementPaleontologyEnvironmental engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Update A unique fluid-pulse technology has generated impressive increases in ultimate oil recovery in applications in North and South America and the Middle East. Developed in Alberta, Canada, the fluid-pulse technology has proved its ability to recover oil previously left behind in fields thought to be depleted or uneconomical—potentially billions of barrels globally. In addition to driving the phenomenal growth of the Alberta oil sands, Canada’s oil industry has developed a depth and breadth of experience in some of the world’s harshest conditions. Those harsh conditions often create opportunities for new technologies to show their capabilities to a largely cautious industry. A recent report by the United States Energy Information Administration notes that the US imported about 45% of the 18.8 million B/D of crude oil and petroleum products it consumed in 2011. Although dependence on foreign petroleum has declined since peaking in 2005, the quest is still on for ways to increase domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Fluid-pulse technology is one way to revive oil fields by recovering more barrels, flattening decline curves, and reducing production costs. Pulsating Injection Stream While waterflooding techniques have been used for secondary oil recovery since the 1920s, fluid-pulse injection optimization brings much higher efficiency to these methods. With most US production growth over the next 2 years predicted to come from tight rock plays in North Dakota and Texas, the fluid-pulse technology is uniquely suited to this type of tight formation, as well as being effective under many other challenging conditions. A downhole tool works with conventional surface equipment and is installed into injection wells to transform the normally steady rate of injection to a pulsating injection stream with typically 10 or more pulses per minute (Figs. 1a, 1b, and 1c). Similar to the idea of kinking a garden hose, precise amounts of energy are repeatedly built up and released by the tool. The pulses add acceleration and momentum to the injected fluid, forcing it into the reservoirs’ nooks and crannies and more impermeable rock at speeds of up to 100 m/s. This enables the injection fluid to enter pore spaces that have remained untouched. The result is a much better sweep of the oil toward the surrounding producing wells. Case Studies A small independent operator in Alberta implemented the technology with six tools in the relatively tight Viking formation in December 2010. This is a mature waterflood in sandstone with average porosity of approximately 9% and permeability ranging from 0 to 50 md. In this light oil project, production increased from the offset producers by 69 BOPD, or 52% above the base decline trend.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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