MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587984289

Enhanced Recovery of Heavy Crudes in the Niger Delta: Chops Application A Key Option

2014· article· en· W2587984289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Kerunwa, Charley Iyke Anyadiegwu, A. CUgwuanyi

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of applied sciences research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiger deltaEnvironmental sciencePetroleumOil productionOil fieldProductivityPetroleum engineeringDeltaGeologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) is one of the key techniques employed for primary heavy oil production. It has gained wide application with great success to enhance heavy oil production in countries like Canada, China, Venezuela, California, USA and Kazakhstan. In order to investigate the productivity of CHOPS technology in the Niger Delta Oil field of Nigeriaa, aanalysis was performed on data collected for  five reservoirs, in which  comparison was made between  the natural case and  the artificial case of Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP), all without sand proof technology. The fluid flow for each case was modelled with PROSPERS, in order to ascertain the quantity of fluid (heavy oil) that could be producible. An inflow performance curve (IPR) was obtained for each case, IPR versus VLP curves were equally obtained. From the study it was discovered that, heavy oil with 18.07 to 22.14 o API can be produced naturally but higher rates are obtainable with CHOPS. This is because the oil viscosities were between 100cp and 102cp. In addition, the corresponding sand productions were estimated with a mathematical model, and sand management in CHOPS were also discussed. With the favourable attributes of heavy crudes in the Niger Delta Oil Field of Nigeria, it is evident that the application of CHOPS would be a great success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJournal of applied sciences researchSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207