MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994342204 · doi:10.2118/131368-ms

Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection Augmented with Chemicals

2010· article· en· W1994342204 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicromodelViscous fingeringPetroleum engineeringSolubilityFlue gasViscosityEnhanced oil recoverySurface tensionCapillary actionPorous mediumWater injection (oil production)ChemistryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringEnvironmental sciencePorosityGeologyComposite materialThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During water-alternating-gas (WAG) flooding for heavy oil reservoirs, the adverse mobility ratio leads to a considerable amount of injection gas fingering through and overriding the oil zone. To improve the recovery efficiency of the WAG process in a Saskatchewan (Canada) heavy oil reservoir, the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) conducted a laboratory feasibility study of augmenting the injection water with chemicals (alkaline/surfactant/polymer). The resulting process is known as CAG, or chemical-alternating-gas (CO2 or flue gas). SRC's integrated approach included interfacial tension (IFT) and rheology measurements, phase behaviour studies, micromodel displacements, and corefloods to evaluate the effectiveness of the CAG process. The results showed that addition of ASP into the injection water could significantly lower IFT (to 10−2 mN/m) and improve mobility. The phase behaviour studies indicated that CO2 could be dissolved readily into reservoir heavy oil at moderate pressures (3.4–6.4 MPa), resulting in dramatic oil expansion (1.2–8.1%) and viscosity reduction (45–88%). It was also demonstrated that the presence of 70% N2 in the CO2 stream (i.e., flue gas) greatly reduced the gas solubility, causing negligible oil swelling and viscosity reduction at the reservoir pressure. It was observed from micromodel displacement tests that CO2 viscous fingering and breakthrough occurred quickly even at a low pressure of 2.3 MPa, indicating the need to lower the capillary pressure between the heavy oil and porous media and add a mobility buffer between the CO2 and heavy oil. The coreflood results showed that a conventional CO2-WAG process recovered more incremental oil than a flue gas-WAG (9.43 vs. 3.58% OOIP), whereas a CO2-CAG and a flue gas-CAG recovered incremental oil of 27.43 and 22.07% OOIP, respectively. The comprehensive studies suggest that the CO2-CAG process holds promise for recovering Saskatchewan's tremendous heavy oil resources.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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