MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159078782 · doi:10.2118/100063-pa

EOR Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United States

2007· article· en· W2159078782 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 Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersUniversity of Texas at AustinU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCarbonatePetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryOil in placeGeologyOil fieldFossil fuelCompletion (oil and gas wells)PetroleumWaste managementEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A considerable portion of the world's hydrocarbon endowment is in carbonate reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs usually exhibit low porosity and may be fractured. These two characteristics along with oil-to-mixed wet rock properties usually result in lowered hydrocarbon recovery rates. When enhanced oil recovery (EOR) strategies are pursued, the injected fluids will likely flow through the fracture network and bypass the oil in the rock matrix. The high permeability in the fracture network and the 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. In most cases, however, 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 referenced in the literature since the early 1970s. These field projects demonstrate the technical feasibility of various EOR methods in carbonate reservoirs. However, because of the collapse in oil prices, most of the aforementioned project plans have been abandoned. This paper presents a comprehensive compilation of EOR (Gas, Chemical, and Thermal methods) field experiences in carbonate reservoirs within the US, as an attempt to identify key variables and project design parameters for future evaluation and revitalization of mature carbonate reservoirs. Carbon dioxide flooding [continuous or water-alternating gas (WAG)] is the dominant EOR process used in the US This is because of the high availability of low-cost CO2. CO2 EOR in particular represents the logical first step towards viable geologic carbon storage and sequestration. EOR chemical methods in carbonate reservoirs, especially polymer flooding, have been widely tested in US carbonate reservoirs. However, EOR chemical methods have made a marginal contribution, relatively, in terms of total oil recovered. Our study includes a brief overview of current laboratory (e.g. wettability changes and novel chemical additives) and field (e.g. injectivity enhancement) experiences in EOR chemical methods in carbonate formations. A brief discussion surrounding the screening methods used to identify viable EOR opportunities in carbonate fields based on past and present experiences is also included. Introduction Carbonate reservoirs are naturally-fractured geologic formations characterized by heterogeneous porosity and permeability distributions. In the case of low porosity and low permeability carbonate rocks (more specifically rock matrices), the fluid flow in the reservoir can be completely dependent on the fracture network while the matrix only plays a source role (analogous to tight sand formations and natural gas flow). In the case of porous carbonate rocks, fracture networks can cause uneven sweeping of the reservoir, leading to early breakthrough of injected fluids in the producing wells and resulting in low recovery factors. The abundance of carbonate reservoirs has been the subject of numerous studies attempting to characterize their heterogeneities, classify different types of fractured reservoirs, and determine how rock and fluid properties have an impact on ultimate recovery (Roehl et al. 1985; Allan and Qing Sun 2003; Carr et al. 2001; Grave et al. 2000; Benson et al. 1998; Wardlaw 1996). The TORIS database (maintained by the US Department of Energy) indicates 22% of the OOIP in the US is contained in shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs. Currently in the US, these types of reservoirs exist in more than 14 states with over 70% of the OOIP located in reservoirs in Texas and New Mexico, mostly concentrated in the Permian Basin (Nuckols 1992, Xie et al. 2005). Over the last three decades, primary production, waterflooding, and CO2 floods, combined with infill drilling programs, have been the most widely used recovery methods. However, other EOR strategies have been tested in the past and there are currently several active research programs seeking alternatives to increase the recovery factor of these mostly light crude-oil reservoirs economically. Although the Permian Basin (west Texas and southeast New Mexico) can be considered mature, its potential for improved oil recovery is still very high. A recent study reports that there is an estimated 30 billion barrels of mobile oil in the Permian Basin, reiterating the strategic importance of EOR technologies for carbonate reservoirs and their impact on US oil production (Nuckols 1992; Xie et al. 2005; Seethepalli et al. 2004; Moritis 2004; Cole 2003; Moritis 2003; Dutton et al. 2004).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · 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