MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401479355 · doi:10.56952/arma-2024-0360

A Comparative Study of Preparation Methods, Weighting Agents, and Temperature on Quality of E-M Compatible Borehole Imaging Fluid

2024· article· en· W4401479355 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Abbasian, Oluwatimilehin Mary Akindele, Abdelsalam Abugharara, Stephen Butt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingQuality (philosophy)BoreholeComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeologyPhysicsAcousticsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Imaging fluids plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of borehole groundwater on borehole E-M imaging results. Such fluid must possess specific characteristics such as low conductivity to minimize electromagnetic wave attenuation, appropriate dielectric permittivity to prevent signal ringing at the fluid-wellbore boundary, higher density than water for settlement at the bottom hole, and long-term stability throughout the imaging process. This study meticulously examines the influence of agitation and temperature on the quality of oil-based imaging fluids, comparing two major preparation methods with distinct grain sizes of the weighting agent. One is the conventional method involving a critical heating step of the emulsifier in 20% of the imaging fluid liquid base, while the second involves dissolving the emulsifier in the liquid base by agitation. Evaluation of the produced fluids encompasses considerations of their stability over time, settlement in various water temperatures, and rheological properties. The results of these experiments reveal the pros and cons of the agitation process compared to the conventional method, weighting agent grain size, and temperature on the overall quality of the produced imaging fluid. 1. INTRODUCTION High frequency electromagnetic waves are used as the source of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to image and map subsurface geological formations and structures (Jol, 2008). Borehole GPR utilizes high frequency electromagnetic waves for mapping out the downhole subsurface geology. This GPR data quality can be influenced by the presence of borehole water or the media between the antenna and the wellbore Li (2023). Hence, the selection of a proper borehole fluid will help overcome the impact of ground water on imaging data quality. Borehole water should be replaced by an imaging fluid at the bottom hole and cover the E-M antennas while imaging. The ideal borehole fluid (imaging fluid) should have specific properties such as low conductivity (low EM wave attenuation), appropriate dielectric permittivity close to that of the host rock to avoid signal ringing between the fluid-wellbore boundary, higher density than water to enable it settle at the bottom hole, and stability such that it does not discompose while imaging. Following the above characteristics, the imaging fluid is made up of a liquid base with low dielectric permittivity and conductivity, a weighting agent to increase its density than water to about Specific Gravity (SG) of 1.2 and an emulsifier to ensure its stability by preventing the separation and settlement of suspended solids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207