ANALYSIS OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY IN THE PELICAN LAKE FIELD USING SURFACTANT AND POLYMER INJECTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To analyze the economic viability of Pelican Lake field, located in Canada, some scenarios using enhanced oil recovery methods were simulated by request of the field operator, Canadian Natural Resources Limited. Surfactant concentrations influence essential characteristics responsible for promoting good recovery, lowering interfacial tension of fluids and aiding oil bank mobility. Considering different polymer and surfactant concentrations in the injection water and using the PumaFlow software, 5 (five) scenarios of fluid injection were simulated. Results show that the oil recovery factor is directly proportional to the concentration of chemical agents. Among the injection tests carried out, the one with the best performance was the case presenting a concentration of 1400 ppm of polymer and 3000 ppm of surfactant in the injected water, allowing a larger oil production from the field. The case presenting the best outcomes had a 50% higher net present value if compared to the water injection case, as well as an increase of 4.85 percent points in the recovery factor. In addition, for each barrel of additional oil produced, only USD 8.18 is spent on chemical agents, which makes it a cost-effective solution to oil production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".