Enhancing Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Retention With Additives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The practice of scale squeeze treatments to oil/gas production wells to prevent inorganic scale formation has been applied for over 30 years and during that period of time different mechanisms to retain the inhibitor chemical have been evaluated. The simple mechanism of inhibitor retention adsorption/desorption has been complemented over the years by enhanced adsorption via mutual solvent and full precipitation of the active inhibitor as calcium salt onto the mineral surface of the reservoir. This study has been conducted to understand if the retention of phosphonate and phosphate ester inhibitors can be improved by adsorption of a charged polymer onto the rock prior to application of the scale inhibitor or if application of the same polymer enhancer after adsorption of the scale inhibitor will extend squeeze life. These tests have been carried out using pack floods at 85°C with synthetic North Sea produced water and the details of the extension in treatment life observed are correlated to the inhibitor type tested and the sequence of application of the polymer enhancer. This study shows how the different functional groups within the scale inhibitors interact with the mineral surface and polymer enhancer to extend treatment lifetimes and so potentially reducing the frequency of squeeze treatments and therefore total cost of 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".