MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050575864 · doi:10.2118/0107-0055-jpt

Screening Criteria for Carbon Dioxide Huff 'n' Puff Operations

2007· article· en· W2050575864 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasProductivityOil fieldEnhanced oil recoveryCrude oilPetroleumGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 100044, "Screening Criteria for Carbon Dioxide Huff ‘n’ Puff Operations," by L. Mohammed- Singh, SPE, Petrotrin, and A.K. Singhal, SPE, and S. Sim, SPE, Alberta Research Council, prepared for the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-26 April. The full-length paper reviews design and performance data on 16 CO2 huff ‘n’ puff projects in the Forest Reserve oil field of Trinidad and Tobago from the past 20 years. Huff ‘n’ puff operations essentially are near-wellbore stimulation techniques that can lead to increased oil recovery by removal of productivity damage, reduced oil viscosity, increased dissolved-gas content, oil swelling, and vaporization of lighter oil components. Introduction The first huff ‘n’ puff experimental project in Trinidad and Tobago was conducted in 1984 in the Forest Reserve oil field. For the Forest Reserve reservoirs with medium-to-heavy crude oils, viscosity reduction and oil swelling aided by gravity drainage and water encroachment are believed to be the most significant mechanisms contributing to increases in oil recovery. The literature contains many screening criteria for enhanced-oil-recovery processes. However, for CO2 huff ‘n’ puff operations, these are generally included in those for immiscible gas-flooding applications. The full-length paper proposes screening criteria for huff ‘n’ puff operations on the basis of results from the Forest Reserve oil field and other published field tests. Reservoir Description The Forest Reserve oil field contains multiple, stacked, complex deltaic reservoirs. The rock and fluid properties of the four reservoirs (targets for huff ‘n’ puff operations) are listed in Table 1 in the full-length paper. Oil gravity ranges from 14 to 25°API, with in-situ viscosities of 12 to 3,000 cp. Reservoirs are solution-gas drive with contributions from water influx. Operations and Production Response CO2 was compressed to 1,000 psi and injected until desired slug volumes were achieved. Wells were shut in, left to soak for 3 to 5 days, and back flowed. Wells were subjected to several cycles (5 cycles maximum). A total of 2,092 MMcf of CO2 was injected and 101,635 bbl of oil recovered from the 16 wells tested. Responses varied from none to a maximum of 12,000 bbl in one cycle. The production cycle generally lasted more than 6 months and as much as several years in some wells. An average of 6,300 bbl per well was recovered, with one well achieving 31,000 bbl. Some of the wells that showed good responses were in downdip locations and possibly benefited from water influx and gravity drainage during the puff phase. Updip wells that yielded good recoveries also were near faults, which may have helped in providing containment and efficient capture of the mobilized oil. Five wells experienced mechanical difficulties and were excluded from the following analyses.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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