MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598949730 · doi:10.2118/184535-ms

Automatic Optimisation of Oilfield Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments Delivered by DSV

2017· article· en· W2598949730 on OpenAlexaff
Oscar Vazquez, Gill Ross, M. M. Jordan, Dionysius Angga Baskoro, Eric Mackay, Clare Johnson, Alistair Strachan

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE International Conference on Oilfield Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsNalco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrineNucleationShut downProduced waterChemistryPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringProcess engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oilfield scale deposition is one of the important flow assurance challenges facing the oil industry. There are a number of methods to mitigate oilfield scale such as sulphate reduction of the injected brine, flow modification to reduce water flow, damage removal by dissolvers or physically by milling or reperforating, and finally, inhibition, particularly recommended if a severe risk of sulphate scale deposition is present. Inhibition consists of the injection of a chemical which prevents the deposition of scale, either by stopping nucleation or retarding crystal growth. The inhibiting chemicals are either injected in a dedicated continuous line, or bull-headed as a batch treatment into the formation, commonly known as a scale squeeze treatment. Generally, scale squeeze treatments consists of the following stages: preflush, to condition the formation or act as a buffer to displace tubing fluids; main treatment, where the main pill of chemical is injected; overflush, to displace the chemical deep into the reservoir; followed by a shut-in stage to allow further chemical retention; finally, the well is put back in production. The well will be protected as long as the concentration of chemical in the produced brine is above a certain threshold, commonly known as minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC), usually this value is between 1 and 20 ppm. The most important factor in a squeeze treatment design is the squeeze lifetime, which is determined by the volume of water or days of production where the chemical return concentration is above MIC. The main purpose of this paper is to describe the automatic optimisation of squeeze treatment designs using an optimisation algorithm, in particular, using particle swarm optimisation (PSO). The algorithm provides the optimum design, which strictly speaking in terms of squeeze treatment designs, it provides the longest squeeze lifetime, although, it might not be the most efficient. To determine the most efficient design, an optimisation algorithm is used to provide an optimum design based on the following objectives: operational deployment costs, chemical cost, total injected water volume and squeeze treatment lifetime. Operational deployment costs include support vessel, pump and tank hire. There might not be a single design optimising all objectives, thus the problem becomes a multi-objective optimisation. The algorithm is capable of analysing a great number of designs, making it easy to identify the designs that are non-dominated, which provides the right amount of information to identify the most cost effective squeeze treatment design, and therefore cutting total treatment costs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE International Conference on Oilfield ChemistrySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207