MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058039419 · doi:10.2118/169168-pa

Safety Considerations for High-Pressure Air Injection Into Light-Oil Reservoirs and Performance of the Holt Sand Unit Project

2015· article· en· W2058039419 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Production & Operations · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersOil and Natural Gas CorporationUniversity of CalgaryU.S. Department of the Interior
KeywordsPartial pressureWaste managementOxygenCompletion (oil and gas wells)PetroleumEnvironmental scienceHigh pressureFossil fuelCorrosionEnvironmental engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeologyChemistryMaterials scienceMetallurgyEngineering physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 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 the potential for explosion or corrosion. Compilation of field problems and reported solutions from such projects indicate that no insurmountable problems exist in the implementation of HPAI projects. Generally, the operators have implemented safe operations successfully 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 and continue to be operated today by Continental Resources, have confirmed that HPAI is a viable and safe process for recovering light oils. A number of oilfield oxygen-injection projects have also been undertaken since the early 1980s, when Greenwich Oil operated the first oxygen-injection project at Forest Hills, Texas. In Canada during the 1980s, 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 US, oxygen-injection pilots were operated by Arco in the Holt Sand Unit (HSU), 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 HSU 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 the energy release has not been discussed in detail. This paper will first review the operational aspects of some key air-injection field tests. Then, some important details on the HSU oxygen-injection pilot test will be discussed as a case study. The reasons behind the energy release in the HSU project will be discussed by use of the surveillance data, as well as combustion-tube-test and numerical-modeling results. Finally, best practices for future operation of HPAI tests will be reviewed. This paper is intended to provide a better understanding of the safety aspects of air/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 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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