Enhanced Oil Recovery Screening of Oil Fields in Central California for ASP Alkali Surfactant Polymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives/Scope This paper demonstrates the potential of alkali surfactant polymer (ASP) within the Central California Oil Fields, which covers Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. Typically, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) screening is performed across a wide range of processes and is applied to individual reservoirs on a case-by-case basis. This study focuses on a single EOR ASP process across multiple fields and pools specific to Central California. Methods, Procedures, Process Reservoir characteristics and Canadian analogs were used to screen for the ASP potential in Central California. Reservoir characteristics data were digitized and taken from what is locally known as the "Gold Book" of Central California (Volume 1, 1998, published by the California Division of Oil & Gas, subsequently renamed CalGEM (California Geologic Energy Management Division). The book contains data for 137 oil and gas fields with 605 pools. Various ASP screening methods and analogs were applied to this dataset. Candidates were then ranked for detailed future analyses. Results, Observations, and Conclusions Screening resulted in the identification of 166 of the 605 pools that passed the Taber and Delamaide screening methods and compared well to analogous Canadian successful commercial ASP projects. Fields were then ranked according to various reservoir properties, size of potential recovery, and location (access to chemicals). The top five, with supporting data, are shown. Graphs and maps were used to illustrate the top-ranked pools along with their locations. Novel/Additive Information The results of initial screening and ranking of Central Californian pools illustrate its potential for ASP applications. Although there have been some ASP studies and pilots conducted in the San Joaquin Basin oil fields, the results are not in the public sphere. Some data have been published by CalGEM on two successful ASP pilots in the Shallow Oil Zone of the Elk Hills Oil Field, California. This study was performed to show possible application of ASP in 166 pools within the 605 pools in the San Joaquin Basin by using publicly available information to identify oil fields that warrant further detailed investigations of oil chemistry, core analysis, reservoir simulation, risk assessments, and in-depth economic studies.
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".