MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029545873 · doi:10.2118/163319-ms

Increasing Oil Recovery with CO2 Miscible Injection: Thani Reservoir, Abu-Dhabi Giant Off-Shore Oil Field Case Study

2012· article· en· W2029545873 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulla Aljarwan, Hadi Belhaj, Mohammed Haroun, Shawket Ghedan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscibilityPetroleum engineeringSeparator (oil production)AsphalteneOil fieldSaturation (graph theory)Enhanced oil recoveryEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper aims to study the miscibility features of CO2 miscible injection to enhanced oil recovery from Thani-III reservoir. A Comprehensive simulation model was used to determine multi contact miscibility and suitable equation of state with CO2 as a separate pseudo component using one of the industry’s standard simulation software. Experimental PVT data for bottom hole and separator samples including compositional analysis, differential liberation test, separator tests, constant composition expansion, viscosity measurements and swelling tests for pure CO2 were used to generate and validate the model. In addition to that, simulation studies were conducted to produce coreflooding and slimtube experimental models, which were compared with the conclusions drawn from experimental results. Results of this study have shown comparable results with the lab experimental data in regards to minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) calculation and recovery factor estimation, where the marginal errors between both data sets were no more than 7% at its worst. Results from this study are expected to assist the operator of this field to plan and implement a very attractive enhanced oil recovery program, giving that other factors are well accounted for such as asphaltene deposition, reservoir pressure maintenance, oil saturation, CO2 sequestering and choosing the most appropriate time to maximize the net positive value (NPV) and expected project gain.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→