Optimization of Gas Utilization to Improve Recovery at Hibernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Hibernia oil field is located in the North Atlantic Ocean over 300 km from St. John's, Newfoundland. The field consists of numerous fault blocks undergoing conventional gas or water injection. The gas injection process is proving to be very efficient providing high recoveries in individual blocks. Expansion of gas injection through conventional development or EOR may potentially provide significant benefits if optimized correctly under a limited gas supply. The need to understand the relative benefits of gas injection into one block versus another has increased and necessitated a full gas utilization study. One EOR option being considered is water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection in some blocks. The objective of the study is to establish a field-wide improved recovery plan based on integrated laboratory, reservoir simulation, pilot, gas supply, and infrastructure studies. This paper will describe the integrated study plan and current progress. The Gas Utilization Optimization Project entails three broad phases: 1) Study Phase; 2) WAG Pilot Execution; and 3) Field-Wide EOR Development. The primary focus at this point is the Study Phase, which will include laboratory studies, reservoir simulation studies, pilot engineering studies, and gas supply and infrastructure assessment. The laboratory studies are being performed to develop a better understanding of PVT, EOR, and SCAL as it applies to the WAG pilot and field-wide development. The reservoir simulation studies provide a basis for the design of the EOR pilot and the field-wide development plan. Pilot engineering must be performed to ensure the pilot will provide the information necessary to make business decisions on future development. Assessing gas supply and infrastructure is essential to understanding gas availability, value, and opportunities for enhancement. This phase is particularly important for remote locations where external gas supplies are limited. This study provides a template for obtaining and integrating information and data necessary to design, evaluate, and implement a gas injection project for improved 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".