MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392726743 · doi:10.2118/218076-ms

Advances in Understanding the Wettability of the Viking Formation

2024· article· en· W4392726743 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saman Mohammadi, Hassan Dehghanpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWettingAstrobiologyComputer scienceEarth scienceGeologyEngineeringChemical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory protocol to evaluate and characterize the in-situ rock and fluid samples from the Viking Formation in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). The experiments are performed in four stages. In stage 1, we conduct Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) techniques on the dry end-pieces of the plugs for pore-scale visualization and compositional analysis. In stage 2, we measure the contact angle (CA) of the equilibrated oil and brine droplets on the surface of the rock samples in the presence of air, and that of the equilibrated oil droplets on oil-saturated rock samples immersed in brine and DIW (deionized water). In stage 3, we perform co-current spontaneous imbibition experiments on a set of twin plugs to compare the rate of brine and oil uptake by capillary suction. In stage 4, we conduct counter-current imbibition experiments on oil-saturated plugs to evaluate oil recovery by DIW and brine. Co-current spontaneous imbibition results show excess brine uptake compared with oil during the early times (first 120 hours). The XRD results show the presence of 11.66 wt. % pore-filling clay minerals (10 wt.% kaolinite and 1.66 wt. % illite) in the selected rock samples. These clay minerals are dispersed in the pore structure of the selected rock samples, as observed in the SEM images taken from these samples. Therefore, it can be concluded that water adsorption by pore-filling clay minerals is the main reason for the excess brine uptake compared with oil at the early times. Although brine imbibes faster and more than oil at the early times, the final imbibed volume of oil is higher than brine, which indicates the presence of small hydrophobic pores with more affinity towards oil than brine. The CA of the equilibrated oil droplet on the surface of the oil-saturated reservoir rock immersed in brine is 114.0°, while that in DIW is 70.43°, indicating that DIW enhances the water-wetness of the reservoir rock by 43.6°. The results of the counter-current imbibition experiments on the oil-saturated plugs show that oil recovery by DIW is 33% of the initial oil volume in the plug, which is 5% more oil than that by the reservoir brine, primarily due to more significant osmotic potential.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→