MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052913685 · doi:10.2118/169168-ms

Safety Considerations for Air Injection into Light Oil Reservoirs

2014· article· en· W2052913685 on OpenAlex
M. R. Fassihi, R.G. Moore, S. A. Mehta, M.G. Ursenbach

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPartial pressureOxygenPetroleumEnvironmental scienceCorrosionWaste managementHigh pressureEnvironmental engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeologyMaterials scienceChemistryEngineering physicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the injection and production streams of any high pressure air injection (HPAI) project or the high oxygen partial pressures associated with enriched air/oxygen injection projects may create serious safety concerns such as potential of explosion or corrosion. Compilation of field problems and reported solutions from such projects indicate that no insurmountable problems exist in the implementation of high pressure air injection projects. Generally, the operators have successfully implemented safe operations when injecting at pressures as high as 6,000 psi. The long term successes of the HPAI projects in the Williston Basin which were initiated in 1978 by Koch Industries, Inc. and continue to be operated today by Continental Resources, Inc. have confirmed that HPAI is a viable and safe process for recovering light oils. A number of oilfield oxygen injection programs have also been undertaken since the early 1980's when Greenwich Oil operated the first oxygen injection project at Forest Hills, Texas. In Canada during the 1980's, oxygen was injected by BP/AOSTRA at Marguerite Lake, by Dome Petroleum at Lindberg, by Husky Energy at Golden Lake, by Mobil Oil at Fosterton, and by Gulf Canada at Pelican. In the U.S. oxygen injection pilots were operated by ARCO in the Holt Sand Unit, Texas and more recently by NiMin Energy at Pleito Creek, California. With increased oxygen partial pressure, there is a greater chance of safety or corrosion problems. In fact, the high oxygen content associated with the Holt Sand Unit project in West Texas caused a severe energy release that resulted in test termination. The reported data on this field are scarce and the nature of energy release has not been discussed in detail. This paper will first discuss some important details on the Holt Sand Unit (HSU) oxygen injection pilot and, then, will provide an overview of the key learnings from this project. The reasons behind the energy release in the HSU project will be discussed using the surveillance data, combustion tube test and numerical modeling results. Operational aspects during and after the test termination will be discussed. This information should provide a better understanding of the safety aspects of oxygen handling and proper practices in such operations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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