Increased Oil Recovery by Application of Plasma Pulse Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Advanced technology of increased hydrocarbons recovery – Plasma Pulse Treatment (PPT) is presented. The explanation of physical impact on the reservoir is given. Examples of laboratory studies and field-testing observed. The physical bases of the PPT are periodic pulses of equal strength, spaced with equal time intervals by discharge current passing through a metal conductor. Shock wave, formed by the explosion of conductor, is propagating radially with supersonic speed, gets out through the perforation holes and provides an elastic compressive and tensile impact on the media. Low frequency waves, propagating deep into reservoir, contribute to the development and formation of new cracks, as well as the transformation of sub-capillary pores into capillary, causing the liquid moves from stagnant zones and channels to the zone of active drainage. The paper presents the description of the physics of a process as well as some calculations and estimates of observed technical parameters. Some estimates and calculations, given in the paper, are based on the principles of nonlinear physics and fluid dynamics. Laboratory studies confirmed substantial changes after PPT application both in oil samples (resulting in viscosity reduction) and core samples (increase of permeability). Microseismic studies, carried out on the field, registered the propagation of waves, created by PPT, on a distance of over 1.3 kilometers away from a treated well. Number of well studies both production and injection ones is presented, showing the long lasting effect of treatment. The overall analysis of over 300 treated wells is given, proving the high efficiency of Plasma pulse technology. Technology, presented and described in the paper, allows increasing the productivity of hydrocarbons wells and involving the reserves of residual and unrecoverable oil into production.
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".