Damage by Swelling Clay and Experimental Study of Cyclic Foam Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performances of the formation damage are permeability decreasing, skin factor increasing and productivity index decreasing.Generally, formation damage is not reversible.This phenomenon is known as reverse funnel effect (Porter 1989).People have been trying to find effective ways to remedy the reservoir damage.Stimulation and hydraulic fracture are traditional way to fix formation damage.However, they all have inevitable limitations.The stimulation fluid is acid usually, which will cause equipment/tubing corrosion, second formation damage and environmental pollution.These problems limit the application of them.And they are not suitable for horizontal well as the gravity, especially for stimulation (Xu and Pu 2013).Bond and Holbrook take foam into the field of oil recovery (Friedmann, Chen, and Gauglitz 1991;Boud and Holbrook 1958;Aarra, Skauge, and Martinsen 2002;Castanier 1989;Zhdanov et al. 1996).Foamed cement plays an important role in preventing and controlling the shallow water flow in deepwater drilling effectively (Zhang et al. 2011).Foam is also important for fracturing and acidizing of low permeability, low pressure or strong water-sensitive reservoirs (Zheng et al. 2011;Xu et al. 2002).These applications all show the important role of foam in oil and gas industry.Recently, we take foam as a stimulation fluid to remedy the formation damage which is caused by clay swelling.However, nitrogen foam is a complicated system and is a structured fluid.The bubbles with different sizes separated by the lamellae form the foam fluid with special structure.Under the shearing action, the foam could deform, collapse, coalesce, and regenerate, which eventually leads to the complexity of foam transporting and blocking in porous media.Therefore, we choose experiment method to study the stimulation process.In this paper, reservoir damage caused by clay is due to
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".