Experimental Investigation of Immiscible Gas Process Performance for Medium Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Immiscible CO2 injection is a potentially viable method of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for medium oil reservoirs in southwestern Saskatchewan. The relatively high reservoir pressures could result in a large extent of CO2 dissolution, significant oil viscosity reduction and oil swelling. Laboratory corefloods were used to compare the performance of different modes of CO2 injection into a medium-gravity oil system. The following methods were compared: injection of a single CO2 slug chased by water, simultaneous injection of water/CO2, and different water-alternating-gas (WAG) cycles. The results indicate that both a single CO2 slug and the first WAG cycle in a series produced oil very efficiently, possibly owing to good gas/oil contact at the relatively high residual oil saturation at this stage. The simultaneous injection of water/CO2 was not as effective as a single CO2 slug, possibly because the co-injected water shielded the oil from being contacted by the gas. Among the four runs, a coreflood with four WAG cycles recovered the most incremental oil—20.58% initial oil in place (IOIP)—while the co-injection process produced the least (8.91% IOIP). This experimental study suggests that the immiscible CO2 EOR process is viable for medium oil reservoirs with relatively high pressures, and that proper process application is important for maximizing additional oil production. Introduction Miscible/immiscible CO2 flooding is an increasingly popular EOR technique. So far, most of the CO2 miscible/immiscible processes have been applied in light oil reservoirs, and there has been little application in medium oil reservoirs. The in-place resources of medium oils, defined as 20 - 30°API, in Saskatchewan are estimated at up to 1,338 × 106 m3 (8.42 billion barrels)(1). Most of these reservoirs are characterized by thin pay (2 to 10 metres in thickness) and shaly sand, and they have been under production for over four to five decades. The estimated average recovery by conventional waterflood, as listed in Table 1, is only approximately 23% IOIP because this method has generally exhibited early water breakthrough and high water cuts owing to the unfavourably high water-to-oil mobility ratio. By adapting miscible/immiscible CO2 flooding technologies that have matured in light oil applications, the immiscible CO2 process is potentially viable for recovering additional oil from these medium oil reservoirs if we can improve its displacement and sweep efficiency(2).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".