Automatic Isotherm Derivation from Field Data for Oilfield Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oilfield scale formation represents a very significant flow assurance challenge to the oil and gas industry, with increasing water production worldwide and higher oil prices. Scale Inhibitor (SI) squeeze treatment is the most widespread method to combat downhole scaling. In order to predict SI squeeze treatments accurately for further optimisation, it is necessary to simulate the SI retention in the formation, which may be described by pseudo-adsorption isotherms. While these are often derived from core flood experiments, sometimes they are not appropriate for modelling well treatments because the core tests on which they are based cannot fully represent field scale processes. In practice, the parameters of an analytic form of the isotherm equation are modified by trial and error by an experienced practitioner until a match is obtained between the prediction and the return profile of the first treatment in the field. The main purpose of this paper is to present a Stochastic Hill Climbing Algorithm for automatic isotherm derivation. The performance of the algorithm was evaluated using data from three field cases. Two success criteria were defined: firstly, ability to match a single historical treatment and secondly, ability to predict subsequent successive treatments. To test for the second criterion, a candidate isotherm was derived from the first treatment in a well that was treated with the same chemical package on consecutive occasions, and then the predictions using the suggested solution were compared with the observed scale inhibitor concentration return profiles from the subsequent treatments. In all the calculations, performance of the isotherms suggested by the Hill Climbing algorithm and isotherms derived by trial and error were compared. The results demonstrate that the Hill Climber Algorithm is a very effective technique for deriving an isotherm to enable accurate modelling of scale inhibitor squeeze treatments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".