Oxidation Studies of Light Hydrocarbons For Underbalanced Drilling Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Economic development of many of the world's oil and gas reserves will require application of improved drilling methods such as underbalanced drilling (UBD), a technique used to minimize formation damage in hydrocarbon reservoirs. In UBD operations, deoxygenated air is often injected along with an oil-based drilling fluid. This de-oxygenated air may contain up to 5% oxygen which can react with oil and/or an oil-based drilling fluid during the drilling process to form potentially hazardous oxidized hydrocarbons, leading to the presence of potentially flammable or explosive mixtures in the surface piping and/or drill string. Discussion of the oxidation behaviour of light oils and oil based drilling fluids in the literature is limited, particularly regarding the effects of long term exposure to oxygen. This paper characterizes the oxidation behaviour of two light oils and an oil-based drilling fluid using thermogravimetry (TG) and differential scanning calorimetry at 89 and 9,811 kPa (1,410 psig). The effects of core, pressure, and pre-exposure to oxygen on subsequent oxidation behaviour were studied. The results show that the addition of core enhanced the oxidation reactions of the oil samples and delayed exothermic activity of the drilling fluid. Elevated pressure accelerated the oxidation reactions. Pre-exposure to oxygen was shown to increase the reactivity of the oils and drilling fluid during subsequent oxidation. The results show that under certain conditions, oxidation processes could begin at significantly reduced temperatures, possibly leading to ignition of the hydrocarbon mixtures. Introduction Underbalanced drilling is a technique used to minimize formation damage caused by drilling fluid invasion in hydrocarbon reservoirs. In order to achieve this, the hydrostatic head of liquid in the hole must be decreased, which can be accomplished by co-injecting nitrogen, natural gas, flue gas, vitiated air (air mixed with nitrogen), or de-oxygenated air (air with some of the oxygen removed). The oxygen containing gases are the least expensive but the possibility of flammable or explosive mixtures is an important safety consideration. De-oxygenated air is normally obtained using portable membrane separation systems. However, this deoxygenated air often contains up to 5% oxygen, by volume. During the drilling process, this oxygen can react with produced hydrocarbons or the oil-based drilling fluid to form peroxides and other oxidized hydrocarbons. These oxidized hydrocarbons could pose a safety hazard. While the oxygen concentrations under consideration are relatively small, the pressures and temperatures in the reservoir and along the drill string are significant. Added to this is the effect of prolonged exposure to oxygen. Drilling fluid is re-circulated throughout the drilling operation and may be used in multiple operations. It may also be exposed to oxygen while in the drilling mud tanks at the surface (during the drilling operation) and storage tanks. Over time the fluid may be gradually oxidized, posing an increased risk of combustion or even explosion. Due to the serious ramifications of undesired oxidation processes, it is necessary to establish fundamental information on the oxidation behaviour of the hydrocarbons involved in these processes. A significant amount of research has been done in understanding the oxidation processes involved in air injection processes and in investigating the safety of underbalanced drilling applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".