MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973802320 · doi:10.2118/01-02-05

A Laboratory Study on Near-Miscible CO2 Injection in Steelman Reservoir

2001· article· en· W1973802320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mingzhe Dong, Shao‐shan Carol Huang, R.K. Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneMiscibilityPetroleum engineeringBrinePetroleum reservoirHydrocarbonOil fieldWater injection (oil production)PropaneGeologyEnvironmental scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Miscible flooding is considered unsuitable for some reservoirs in southeast Saskatchewan because of high C)2 minimum miscibility pressure or operating pressure constraints. Therefore, the effectiveness of near-miscible C)2 injection was assessed for the Steelman reservoir in a laboratory study. The minimum miscibility pressures (MMP) were estimated for Steelman reservoir fluids with pure C)2 and C)2-hydrocarbon gas mixtures, the partially flashed reservoir fluids and the dead oils with pure C)2. The results of MMP studies demonstrated (1) addition of ethane or propane can reduce C)2 MMP greatly; and (2) achieving a miscible C)2 flood in the Steelman reservoir could be possible at a lower operating pressure than the measured C)2 MMP, by partially depleting the reservoir. Asphaltene flocculation tests showed that, after the onset point, flocculation increased linearly with gas concentration, but that the presence of brine had a negligible effect. Three tertiary C)2 coreflood tests were conducted with Steelman reservoir fluids at the reservoir temperature. These results showed that the microscopic displacement efficiency during the C)2 injection stage improved with the operating pressure in the near-miscible region, but no dramatic change in oil recovery was observed with a change in operating pressure. Introduction The Steelman pool, located about 200 km southeast of Regina, Saskatchewan, was discovered in 1954. Covering approximately 370 km2, the field was estimated to contain over 134 million m3 of light oil in the Frobisher and Midale beds located at a depth of about 1,400 m. Most of the reservoirs in the Midale beds, which contain about 83﹪ of the reserves of the pool, have been under waterflood for over 20 years and have nearly reached the estimated production limit by primary and waterflood(1). For achieving additional oil recovery and consequent financial benefits, the development of tertiary enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques, such as C)2 flooding, is essential. Miscible C)2 flooding is a proven enhanced oil recovery technique(2). Over the last decade, C)2 injection has become the leading EOR process for light oil(3). In Canada, the industry interest in C)2 flooding is evidenced by Shell Canada's C)2 pilot tests(4, 5), a miscible C)2 flood at Joffre field in Alberta(6), and the implementation of PanCanadian's Weyburn C)2 injection project(7). Additional field applications are expected to be initiated in southeast Saskatchewan and other regions when C)2 sources are available. Miscible C)2 displacement offers the greatest oil recovery potential, but it can only be achieved at a pressure greater than a certain minimum referred to as the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). The effect of solution gas on the development of miscibility is not well understood, as is reflected by the lack of a consensus in the literature. Rathmell et al.(8) found that C)2 MMP is related to the volatile and intermediate fractions of the oil. Yelling and Metcalfe(9) found from their experimental study that, for a saturated reservoir oil, areal variation in gas-oil ratio (GOR) will result in an areal variation in the C)2 MMP. They pointed out that the C)2 MMP determined for a pilot area may not apply to the rest of the field.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207