MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323657550 · doi:10.2118/212743-ms

A Laboratory Protocol to Investigate EOR by Surfactants During Pre-Loading of Parent Wells to Mitigate Fracture Hit

2023· article· en· W4323657550 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Alinejad, Lan Wang, Hassan Dehghanpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpark plugImbibitionPetroleum engineeringPulmonary surfactantEnhanced oil recoveryCore (optical fiber)Materials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryGeologyComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Generally, pressure and fluid communications between parent and child wells which is referred to as frac hit deteriorate the production performance of the parent well. Small pre-loading technique is one of the cost-efficient and operationally simple strategies to mitigate frac hit. However, the production outcome of the parent well is unsatisfactory after flowback of pre-loading fluid in most of the pilots. To overcome this negative impact, we intend to evaluate the extent of additional oil recovery by imbibition of fluids with two types of non-ionic surfactant additives (SF-1 and SF-2) during pre-loading and flowback processes. We utilize a high-pressure and high-temperature visualization cell to conduct the pre-loading experiments using Montney rock and fluid samples. We restore the initial reservoir condition in the core plug and then simulate the primary production stage of the reservoir to establish a depleted core plug. Then, we conduct two sets of experiments on the depleted core plug: 1) soaking the plug with SF-1 surfactant solution under atmospheric conditions and 2) pre-loading the depleted core plug with the SF-1 surfactant solution at a pressure of 3,500 psig and reservoir temperature of 78°C. We also pre-load an oil-saturated core plug with SF-2 surfactant solution at similar operational conditions. Our results show that 31.4% of the original oil-in-place is produced during the primary production stage with solution-gas drive as the dominant oil-recovery mechanism. We observe an additional 3.9% (of original oil-in-place) oil recovery due to counter-current imbibition of the SF-1 surfactant solution after soaking under atmospheric conditions. The interfacial tension reduction and wettability alteration are two possible oil-recovery mechanisms during surfactant soaking. Pre-loading the depleted core plug with SF-1 surfactant solution at a set pressure of 3,370 psig and a temperature of 78°C does not result in additional oil recovery. However, pre-loading the oil-saturated core plug with SF-2 surfactant solution at the same operational conditions results in an approximately 29.6% oil recovery. We observe oil droplets formed on the rock surface during soaking of the oil-saturated plug with SF-2 surfactant solution. We conclude that longer soaking periods may assist in additional oil recovery in core plugs with depleted state compared to the non-depleted plugs.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→