MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896103342 · doi:10.2118/0818-0021-jpt

Technology Update: Seismic Stimulation: An Eco-Friendly, Effective EOR Alternative

2018· article· en· W2896103342 on OpenAlex
Bill Wooden

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryHydraulic fracturingPetroleum engineeringWell stimulationOil and natural gasGeologyEnvironmentally friendlyFossil fuelEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePetroleumReservoir engineeringWaste managementPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Update Environmental and economic concerns have led to an increased interest in seismic stimulation as an alternative enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methodology. Seismic stimulation, achievable with the implementation of a single tool, requires significantly lower investments than gas, thermal, and chemical injection methods, while making minimal environmental impact. Applied Seismic Research (ASR), based in McKinney, Texas, has placed more than 200 of its proprietary seismic stimulation tools in more than 50 locations, including fields in Arkansas, California, Canada, Egypt, Kansas, Mexico, Oklahoma, Oman, and Texas. This article will examine the operation of the tool and highlight the EOR results achieved in a variety of formations. What is Seismic Stimulation? Seismic stimulation is the harnessing of low-frequency, high-energy elastic waves to mobilize oil. The method’s origins trace back to the 1950s when it was noticed that natural earthquakes could increase oil production by up to 45%. Attempts in the 1980s to duplicate earthquake effects by the use of surface vibrators above a targeted zone were largely unsuccessful and commercially unviable. Later development of tools that generate subsurface shockwaves proved more promising. ASR received the first patent for its technology in 2000. A “Greener” EOR Method In-situ seismic stimulation may be one of the greenest EOR options available. The method doesn’t involve injecting any amount of potentially harmful fluids or chemicals into the earth or dealing with the byproducts created by other EOR methods. In fact, it is implemented in a completely closed wellbore having no hydraulic communication with the formation. It can offer a measure of relief to field operators grappling with issues including managing groundwater contamination from harmful chemicals; dealing with the treatment, transport, and disposal of high volumes of contaminated wastewater; and/or handling the environmental consequences of the intense energy and carbon use occasioned by thermal injections. How the Tool Works The seismic stimulation tool (Fig. 1), which has a lifespan of up to 1.5 years and typically requires no maintenance, is powered by a conventional pumping unit and can be installed in abandoned wells at depths from 700 to 10,000 ft. It is relatively easy to transport to wellsites, coming in three preassembled segments in a single crate. The tool is installed into an abandoned wellbore, connected to a rod string and then to a pumping unit. The pumping unit drives movement of three plungers within the tool in unison. The lowest plunger contains a traveling valve to bring in fluids. When the plunger reaches the top of its stroke, it exits the lower barrel to release highly compressed fluids, creating the elastic waves.

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.

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 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 score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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