MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029059904 · doi:10.2118/0305-0028-jpt

Planning Successful EOR Projects

2005· article· en· W2029059904 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringFlooding (psychology)Process (computing)EngineeringEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High oil prices and concerns about future oil supply are leading to a renewed interest in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a group of technologies that can significantly increase recovery from existing oil reservoirs. Most of the experience with EOR is still in the United States, principally with CO2 flooding in the Permian Basin in west Texas and with the several thermal processes in the San Joaquin Valley in California. A listing of these projects is compiled every 2 years. But worldwide applications are growing. Thermal recovery of bitumen in Alberta, Canada, is increasing rapidly, and thermal projects have been successful in Venezuela, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Chemical and polymer floods are being implemented in China. New applications increasingly will be worldwide. Each one will depend on careful planning to design an EOR project specific to the properties of the oil, the reservoir conditions, and the availability of injectants. In many situations, new EOR technology will be necessary. The processes being applied in the United States were tailored for those conditions and do not necessarily translate to other geologic provinces. This article attempts to distill past experience to define the state of the art in planning EOR projects. It is grounded in more than 30 years of experience by the authors in a wide variety of EOR applications. The Planning Process Successful EOR project management depends on good planning. “Prior proper planning prevents poor performance,” they say, and it is especially true when EOR is involved. Planning includes: - Identifying the appropriate EOR process. - Characterizing the reservoir. - Determining the engineering design parameters. - Conducting pilots or field tests as needed. - Finishing with a plan to manage the project to meet or exceed expectations. From the outset, and at every step along the way, we strongly recommend that careful attention be paid both to economic studies and to reservoir simulation as the reservoir characterization and engineering design progresses. In this way, the chances of success are greatly improved. Fig. 1 illustrates the interaction of all three. Economics is the ultimate project driver. After all, unless the project is comfortably profitable, it should not be pursued in the first place. But reliable economics need good performance predictions. Good simulation models need good data. And what data are needed is determined by which project elements the economics is sensitive to. Each guides and depends on the others.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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