MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586759560 · doi:10.2118/185026-ms

A Modeling Study of EOR Potential for CO2 Huff-n-Puff in Tight Oil Reservoirs - Example from the Bakken Formation

2017· article· en· W2586759560 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

VenueSPE Unconventional Resources Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSaudi AramcoAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringTight oilEnhanced oil recoveryTight gasOil in placeCompletion (oil and gas wells)Permeability (electromagnetism)Oil fieldWellboreHydraulic fracturingPetroleumGeologyEnvironmental scienceOil shaleChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The most commonly used technology for development of unconventional liquid-rich and light oil reservoirs is horizontal wells combined with large multi-stage hydraulic fracture treatments. However, even with these technological advancements, primary recovery factors are generally less than 10% (Shoaib and Hoffman, 2009) of the original oil in place (OOIP). Logically, operators have investigated the use of waterflooding to improve recovery in some tight oil reservoirs, but the success has been mixed. Low matrix permeability in some unconventional (tight) oil reservoirs will not allow effective displacement or movement of water through the reservoir. In some cases, even flooding with a gas will be a challenge, if matrix permeabilities are too low. This study investigates the feasibility of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in a prominent tight oil reservoir in North America using cyclic solvent injection (CSI, sometimes referred to as "huff-n-puff") with carbon dioxide (CO2) as the solvent. CSI is a single well process, with the solvent remaining in the vicinity of the wellbore, as flow of the solvent through the reservoir to another well is not necessary. This type of process may be attractive from a capital cost point-of-view, as large expenditures on specialized facilities, in-field pipelines and well conversions are unnecessary. In this study, the success and profitability of huff-n-puff is evaluated for the Bakken tight oil reservoir. Knowledge gained from a parallel study (Kanfar and Clarkson, 2017) served to provide guidelines for optimizing the huff-n-puff process. Importantly, a genetic algorithm (GA) is utilized to find the optimum huff-n-puff program that maximizes net present value (NPV). Optimized parameters include: the number of cycles; duration of injection, soaking and production periods; and the start time of huff-n-puff operations. The target reservoir for evaluation is the US Bakken deep tight oil reservoir in North Dakota. The huff-n-puff EOR scheme was found to be successful, but only after the aforementioned operational parameters are optimized with GA. In particular, it is important to delay huff-n-puff until production rates decline and boundary-dominated flow (after fracture interference) is reached. Importantly, as with the parallel study (Kanfar and Clarkson 2017), the gridding scheme used in the simulation is found to have a profound impact on results of huff-n-puff.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.227 · 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