Direct Current Electrical Enhanced Oil Recovery in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs To Improve Recovery, Reduce Water Cut, and Reduce H2S Production While Increasing API Gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electro-Petroleum, Inc. (EPI) has successfully demonstrated use of DC electrical current for enhanced oil recovery (a process we now call "Electro-Enhanced Oil Recovery", or EEOR) at heavy oil fields in the Santa Maria (California) Basin and the Eastern Alberta Plains. They have also conducted large-scale (1 cu-m sample size) laboratory studies to evaluate unexpected results from these field demonstrations. Dr. G. V. Chilingar, of the University of Southern California, publicly advocated using a similar technology in the 1960’s. Several successful applications of similar technology have been claimed, in the Former Soviet Union. Field studies in California have demonstrated up to a ten-fold increase in oil production from a field containing 8° API gravity oil. Recent research has demonstrated that the EEOR process is also capable of cold cracking of heavy oil in-situ, resulting in lighter produced oil and increased reservoir pressures. EEOR can function at depths below 10,000 feet, well below the 2,500 ft. practical limit for steam flood operations. Observed changes in the produced fluids include:Increased oil production rates.Reduced produced oil viscosity increased API gravity).Reduced water cut.Reduced H2S production.Increased gas production.Increased produced gas energy (heavy gas) content.Reduced PAH production. All of these observed fluid chemistry changes can be explained by the use of DC electrical technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".