MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329107227 · doi:10.1021/ef401363b

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO<sub>2</sub> Huff-and-Puff Processes

2014· article· en· W2329107227 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsMiscibilityEnhanced oil recoverySolubilityDissolutionChemistryLight crude oilSurface tensionCrude oilPetroleum engineeringPhase (matter)ChromatographyThermodynamicsGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recovery performance of immiscible and miscible CO 2 huff-and-puff processes for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in a light crude oil sample was experimentally investigated. The minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the original light crude oil–CO 2 system was determined by means of the vanishing interfacial tension technique and found to be MMP = 9.18 MPa. Then, the solubility of the CO 2 in the light crude oil and oil swelling factor due to the CO 2 dissolution in the oil phase were determined at T = 30 °C and various equilibrium pressures ranging from atmospheric pressure to P eq = 12.55 MPa. Later, series of immiscible and miscible CO 2 huff-and-puff tests were designed and carried out at various operating pressures (i.e., P op = 5.38–10.34 MPa). The results of the experiments showed that for secondary CO 2 huff-and-puff tests performed at the operating pressures below the MMP, the ultimate oil recovery factor is quite low. It was also found that in immiscible CO 2 huff-and-puff (i.e., P op < MMP) scenarios, the oil recovery factor substantially increased as the operating pressure approached near-miscible conditions. The oil recovery factor almost reached its maximum value at operating pressure near MMP (i.e., miscible condition), and further increase of operating pressure beyond MMP did not improve the recovery factor at all. The tertiary mode of miscible CO 2 huff-and-puff was also examined, and it was revealed that the oil recovery is significantly improved after a waterflooding process. The oil recovery mechanisms during the CO 2 huff-and-puff were mainly recognized to be interfacial tension reduction, oil swelling, and extraction of lighter components by CO 2, especially during miscible CO 2 injections. In addition, the average asphaltene content of produced oil and the permeability reduction of the porous medium as a result of asphaltene precipitation were measured in each test. It was found that the amount of precipitated asphaltene in the porous medium as well as permeability reduction are considerably higher in near-miscible and miscible CO 2 huff-and-puff tests compared to those in immiscible cases. The compositional analysis of remaining oil from CO 2 huff-and-puff tests at immiscible and miscible conditions also showed that lighter components of oil are extracted by CO 2, leading the remaining oil to become heavier with greater amounts of heavy hydrocarbons (i.e., C 30+ ). However, it was observed that the extraction of lighter components during miscible injection processes is more predominant than that during immiscible injections, resulting in the production of higher quality oil.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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