MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007561941 · doi:10.2118/200482-pa

Evaluation of Formation Damage of Oil-Based Drilling Fluids Weighted with Micronized Ilmenite or Micronized Barite

2020· article· en· W3007561941 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Drilling & Completion · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrilling fluidPetroleum engineeringRheologyDrillingPermeability (electromagnetism)Oil fieldIlmeniteLost circulationGeologyMaterials scienceMineralogyComposite materialMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Solids found in drilling fluids, particularly weighting materials, can cause significant formation damage by plugging of formation pores. This study investigates formation damage caused by using oil-based drilling fluid systems weighted by micronized ilmenite or micronized barite. Rheological properties of the oil-based-mud (OBM) systems were measured. High-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) static filtration experiments were conducted. A coreflood system was used to simulate dynamic conditions, allowing for drilling fluid circulation at the face of the core and measuring permeability damage. Computed-tomography (CT) scan analysis revealed formation damage and depth of solid invasion. The paper presents field applications of nondamaging micronized-ilmenite-based OBM, illustrating its advantages.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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