MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997812723 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.280

Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring Project, Alberta, Canada—Geochemical interpretation of produced fluid compositions

2009· article· en· W1997812723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephen Talman, Ernie Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsCalciteDissolutionEnhanced oil recoveryGeochemical modelingPetroleum reservoirAquiferGeologyGeochemistryGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryPetroleum engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A CO 2 monitoring pilot was initiated at the Penn West Energy Trust CO 2 EOR operations within the Cardium formation of the Pembina Field. The Penn West Pembina-Cardium CO 2 EOR Monitoring research program focused on well integrity, local/ regional geology and hydrology, extensive monitoring of CO 2 and short and long predictive modeling. The geochemical modelling program of the Penn West Monitoring Project quantified the chemical reactions that occur between the gas -oil-water-rock within the reservoir prior to, during, and following CO 2 injection. An equilibrium speciation geochemical model was used to examine the field produced water compositions. Many of the produced waters are undersaturated with respect to calcite. This is most easily explained when mixtures of waters of quite different chemical compositions are produced from a single producing well. This observation has important implications for the interpretation of produced water compositions and demonstrates that flow within the reservoir must be understood to fully interpret the chemistry signatures. A reaction mass transfer model was used to evaluate the chemical processes in the reservoir (short and long term) and to evaluate the thermodyn amic data base. It established that the dominant reaction controlling the short term water composition was ion exchange reactions, coupled with calcite dissolution and CO 2 transfer from the oil phase. It was also used as a predictive tool to estimate them ineralogical reactions which will ultimately be responsible for the long term trapping of the injected CO 2 . GEM-GHG was used to calculate the chemical processes occurring during the various phases of hydrocarbon recovery, including the predicted evolution of produced water compositions, and th e results compared to field measurements. Discrepancies between the modeled and the measured field data can be used to refine the model, improving our understanding of chemical processes in the reservoir. The geochemic al models allow an assessment of the amount of CO 2 trapping in each of the major units in the reservoir. There are large uncertainties in the absolute value of the amounts, but they allow a direct comparison between trapping mechanisms and a direct comparison between the trapping in each reservoir unit. This work represents a first study to demonstrate the potential of using geochemical sampling and measurements and integrating them with reservoir models for secondary and tertiary oil recovery.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207