MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054043212 · doi:10.1115/1.1944029

Impact of Brine Flow and Mixing in the Reservoir on Scale Control Risk Assessment and Subsurface Treatment Options: Case Histories

2005· article· en· W2054043212 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsNalco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrineScalingPetroleum engineeringSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental scienceFlow assuranceMixing (physics)Scale (ratio)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)GeologyBusinessOceanographyMathematicsChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As offshore production environments become ever more complex, particularly in deepwater regions, the risks associated with formation damage due to precipitation of inorganic scales may increase to the point that production by conventional waterflooding may cease to be viable. The ability to predict and control such formation damage can thus become critical to project success under such circumstances. The work described in this paper presents how the risk may be managed from early in the CAPEX phase of projects through to the OPEX phase by use of reservoir simulation tools to better understand the scaling potential in a reservoir and the possibilities for effective scale control. This process is illustrated by reference to a number of field examples where specific scaling problems have been identified, and the ability to implement effective scale management has been impacted by detailed fluid flow and brine-mixing calculations.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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