Chemical Foamers for Gas Well Deliquification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a noticeable impact on a gas well's production rate when there is a build up of liquids downhole in the casing and the tubing of the well. The liquid may be in the form of formation water, condensed water or hydrocarbon condensate, but coupled with a fall in reservoir pressure the affect on production is the same. It causes the flow regime of the well to change, to an eventual point when the well ceases to produce. This is due to a hydrostatic lock, typically in the tubing, that the well pressure is unable to move. To reduce the production decline and prevent premature well shut in chemical foamers can be used as a means of artificial lift. These are surfactant chemistries designed to modify physical properties of the liquids, such as surface tension, which aid unloading. The common chemistries used are discussed in this paper and a detailed explanation provided on how they are effective at deliquifying gas wells. To develop this technology for commercial use it is important to have a process for evaluating performance. This begins in the laboratory using the unloading rig. This is a test method that provides information on the foam generated as well as indicate an unloading potential. Once a potential candidate has been identified in the lab then the process is undertaken to transfer the technology to the field. Identifying a suitable well to enable a field trial to be completed. Within the paper the test method is explained and the transfer process and results from the field presented.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".