MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3115839895 · doi:10.1115/omae2020-18222

Characterization of Rock and Fluid Properties for Low-Salinity Water Flooding of Highly Paraffinic Oil in a Deep Low-Permeability High-Pressure High-Temperature Offshore Carbonate Reservoir

2020· article· en· W3115839895 on OpenAlexaff
Navpreet Singh, Paras H. Gopani, Hemanta Sarma, Padmaja Mattey, D. S. Negi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringGeobiologyCarbonateWater floodingSubmarine pipelinePermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyReservoir modelingOil fieldPetroleum reservoirEnhanced oil recoverySalinityRelative permeabilityWater injection (oil production)Reservoir simulationEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringRegional geologyHydrogeologyMaterials scienceMetamorphic petrologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Characterization of the rock and fluids is an essential step in screening a reservoir for Low-Salinity Water Flooding (LSWF). A detailed characterization of rock and fluid properties using appropriate methods is being presented for LSWF in a low-permeability deep carbonate reservoir together with a critical analysis of findings. The techniques used are assessed against other possible alternative methods, with inferences drawn on advantages and disadvantages of each to better interpret and apply data so gathered. In so doing, discussions on their key features as to how they can be used effectively and efficiently to screen a reservoir for LSWF are also provided. Such integration of results with other available reservoir and production data should result in a comprehensive description of the target reservoir, and it will help interpret the mechanisms and process dynamics more reliably during a low-salinity waterflood. This integration should allow us not only to gain confidence on the experimental studies but could also help optimize the key parameters responsible for formulating a more robust, reliable and representative regime for tests relevant to the LSWF prior to its eventual implementation in the field. To authors’ knowledge, such integration of experimental studies has not yet been reported in the literature, particularly for the tight carbonate reservoirs with highly paraffinic oil.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→