Surfactant Screening to Alter the Wettability and Aid in Acidizing Carbonate Formations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surfactant flooding in carbonate matrix acidizing treatment has been widely used for changing the wettability of the rock and to achieve low IFT values. Optimizing the type of surfactant and concentration for the specific oil field is very important in order to avoid formation damage and to reduce the treatment cost.\n\nWe built an experimental procedure for screening the right surfactant to alter the wettability and aid in acidizing of Pekisko formation, Canada, which is strongly oil-wet and has high viscosity oil. Five surfactants were tested out of which three are cationic, one amphoteric and the other one was a fluoro-surfactant. Measurements were made of interfacial tension with different surfactant types/concentrations in brine with the oil and xylene, critical micelle concentration of each surfactant, solubility characteristics of the surfactants, compatibility of the chemical additives, wettability of the core after treating with surfactants, and core flooding in the laboratory to simulate matrix acidizing.\n\nFrom the results obtained we noted that the fluoro-surfactant can cause formation damage due to precipitation in the brine. So the compatibility of every chemical additive should be tested first. The use of xylene as a pre-flush solution lowered the CMC and hence reduced the cost of the surfactant treatment. Aromox, an amine based surfactant was best suited for matrix acidizing treatment of the Pekisko formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".