A Comparative Study on the Performance of Acid Systems for High Temperature Matrix Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents a comparative analysis on the performance of acid fluid systems, which are commonly used for high-temperature (>150°C) carbonate matrix stimulations. The comparison is based upon the key factors including ease of implementation, corrosion and operational costs, and performance assessment in terms of improving well deliverability. Moreover, core and field scale numerical simulations are performed to examine the rock matrix acidizing behavior under different reservoir conditions. The main variables are acid types, temperature, and injection rate. Results underline the conditions under which optimal stimulation concerning permeability and length of treatment is attainable. According to results, a stand-alone stimulating fluid of glutamic acid diacetic acid (GLDA) shows the lowest corrosion rate followed by methanesulfonic acid (MSA) and hydroxyethyl ethylenediamine triacetic acid (HEDTA) under high temperature conditions. In the absence of corrosion inhibitor, GLDA gives the lowest results in terms of corrosion for 22Cr and 13Cr steels. Moreover, acid response data revealed that GLDA has the lowest optimum injection rate when compared to other acids considered in this study. Our simulation results show that the penetration depth (acid front) of acid is highly affected by the radial flow characteristics in field scale simulations, as the penetration depth is not linearly correlated to the volume of acid injected.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".