MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979977390 · doi:10.1021/ie050572y

Effect of Operational Parameters on Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity in a Heterogeneous Oil Reservoir:  A Case Study

2005· article· en· W1979977390 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Asghari, Adal Al-Dliwe, Nader Mahinpey

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxidePetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryInjectorCarbonateCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Fossil fuelReservoir engineeringGeologyWaste managementPetroleumMaterials scienceChemistryEngineeringClimate changeOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is attracting considerable interest worldwide as a means of avoiding continued release of CO 2 from anthropogenic sources. Here, a heterogeneous oil reservoir in Alberta, Canada, was chosen for evaluating the potential use of this site for storage of a mixture of 90% CO 2 + 10% H 2 S produced from a nearby gas plant. This reservoir produces 34° API light oil from a pinnacle reef, which is a carbonate reservoir with a depth of 4800 ft (1441 m). A fully compositional, three-dimensional (3-D) reservoir simulation model, CMG-GEM, was used to simulate various operational conditions, study the reservoir and fluid characteristics, and investigate the amount of CO 2 stored and oil recovered. The results of this study show that a combination of two vertical injectors and one horizontal producer optimizes the incremental oil recovered and amount of CO 2 stored. The procedure developed in this study, and the findings of this study, can be used as guidelines for designing and implementing any future CO 2 injection and storage project in similar oil reservoirs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207