MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100410228 · doi:10.2118/100063-ms

EOR Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United States

2006· article· en· W2100410228 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersUniversity of Texas at AustinU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringCarbonateOil in placeEnhanced oil recoveryCompletion (oil and gas wells)InfillOil fieldGeologyFossil fuelPorosityPermeability (electromagnetism)Environmental sciencePetroleumEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringWaste managementMaterials scienceCivil engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A considerable portion of the world's hydrocarbon endowment, and even more so if resources from the Middle East are excluded, are in carbonate reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs usually exhibit low porosity and may be fractured. These two characteristics in addition to oil-to-mixed wet rock properties usually results in low recovery. When enhanced oil recovery (EOR) strategies are pursued, the injected fluids will likely flow is through the fracture network, bypassing oil in the rock matrix. The high permeability in the fracture network and its low equivalent porous volume result in early breakthrough of the injected fluids. Infill drilling programs and well conformance strategies, mostly gas and water shutoff, have been effectively used to mitigate the early breakthrough and increase oil recovery. However, in most cases, 40 to 50% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is not produced. A large number of EOR field projects in carbonate reservoirs have been reported in the literature since the early 70's. The field projects showed the technological capability to increase oil recovery and estimated long run costs for their operation. This increase in oil recovery would directly result in additional reserves extending the productive life of the different assets. However, the technical results were not matched by their economic viability given the price environment of the time. In some cases high upfront investments created insurmountable barriers for the technology's application despite the promise of higher returns. In other cases, the high marginal costs eliminated all benefits from the increased recovery. The latter was especially true for EOR processes based on chemical and thermal methods. Over the last three decades, many improvements have reduced the cost per incremental barrel as will be seen below. Carbon dioxide flooding (continuous or alternating with water-WAG) is the dominant EOR process in the United States, mostly due to the availability of appropriate CO2. CO2 EOR is also the stepping stone towards sequestering carbon which could become a future business opportunity if carbon trading ever is implemented. This paper presents an overview of EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United States, an analysis of recent efforts and discusses briefly on new opportunities for novel chemical methods. The main EOR experiences reviewed are CO2 injection, polymer flooding, steam injection and in-situ combustion (air injection).

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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