MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332188336 · doi:10.2118/174362-ms

Insights into Whether Low Salinity Brine Enhances Oil Production in Liquids-rich Shale Formations

2015· article· en· W2332188336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai He, Christina Nguyen, Ramya Kothamasu, Liang Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado School of MinesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsOil shaleSalinityPulmonary surfactantSurface tensionPetroleum engineeringBrineEnhanced oil recoveryImbibitionGeologyShale oilEmulsionWettingChemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low salinity water (LSW) flooding has been an attractive technique for enhancing oil recovery. Several LSW mechanisms have been proposed to account for the additional oil recovery, such as interfacial tension (IFT) reduction, wettability alteration, clay migration and microdispersion. However, none of the adequate mechanisms can consistently explain different cases because of the nature of heterogeneity in crude oil and formation rock. Because of a gradual shift from using fresh water to produced water, there is a need to investigate the effects of low salinity on oil recovery from shales to understand potential implications of this shift. Additionally, few studies have been documented on low salinity brines (LSBs) as the fracturing fluids for stimulation applications in liquids-rich shale plays with or without surfactant. This paper discusses a study in which low salinity surfactant solutions were injected into the Muskwa shale rock from Canada. Laboratory results suggest that LSBs ([LSBs], ≤4% KCl) extract more hydrocarbon than high salinity brines ([HSBs], ≥8% KCl). Notably, additional oil recovery was observed when surfactant is used in LSB. To explore the mechanisms, interfacial tension, emulsion tendency, and reservoir on a chip (ROC) were performed. Interfacial tension reduction was not observed for LSB with surfactants. However, short-lived emulsions were observed in LSB in the presence of a surfactant. Additionally, LSB with surfactant were injected into a microfluidic based ROC device, where the pore size was comparable to that of shale rocks, and the oil recovery that was visualized on ROC was consistent with that found in core flooding tests, and shows the benefit of injection of low salinity surfactant solutions. Based on such observations, two-step mechanisms are proposed for improved oil recovery (IOR) for low salinity surfactant injection: (1) destabilized oil layers (oil/rock) and enhanced pair interaction (surfactant/oil) extract more oil globules and (2) a short-lived emulsion formed by surfactants enables a higher tendency to mobilize the oil globules. The results suggest a potential methodology for optimizing source water prior to fracturing operations. This study strongly suggests that low salinity and surfactant additives optimization are imperative to enhanced well productivity from liquids-rich shale plays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207