MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795305710 · doi:10.2118/190152-ms

A Novel Coreless Injectivity Technique for Evaluating Formation Damage in Argillaceous Reservoirs

2018· article· en· W2795305710 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Luo, Kelvin D. Knorr, Petro Nakutnyy, Mike Crabtree

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillDrillingPetroleum engineeringDrill cuttingsGeologyWater injection (oil production)Permeability (electromagnetism)PorosityCoringDrilling fluidGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For waterflooding in argillaceous reservoirs, the injection water needs to be carefully designed to avoid formation damage by clay swelling and migration. Common methods of achieving this are compatibility tests of injection water with formation water and rocks and injectivity tests. However, such tests are often not practical nor even possible due to the limited availability and prohibitive cost of obtaining actual reservoir cores. The objective of this work was to develop a cost-effective method to evaluate injectivity that does not require the use of reservoir core. In this study, a novel coreless injectivity method was developed and validated. The method utilizes field-produced drill cuttings to make synthetic core plugs, which are universally available during well drilling and commonly considered as waste. A specially designed cleaning process was performed for the drill cuttings. They were then wet compressed with a high-pressure hydraulic press and dried in a constant-humidity oven to make core plugs with standard dimensions. Drill cutting plugs prepared in this way can then be used for injectivity tests as an alternative to actual reservoir core plugs. The routine core analysis revealed that, although sedimentary structures were lost, the drill cutting plugs preserved the mineralogy and maintained comparable porosity and permeability to the reservoir plugs. To validate the representativeness of the formation damage tendencies of the drill cutting plugs, water injectivity tests were carried out on both preserved reservoir cores and compressed drill cutting cores, using simulated injection water with successively lower salinities. The results showed that injectivity loss as indicated by increasing pressure drop was consistent with both types of cores. The "coreless injectivity evaluation" technique can be applied for argillaceous reservoirs with formation damage concerns. It is a cost-effective and viable technique for evaluating water injectivity when reservoir cores are unavailable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Improved Oil Recovery ConferenceSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207