MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746889095 · doi:10.7122/486365-ms

Carbon Dioxide in Situ Generation for Enhanced Oil Recovery

2017· article· en· W2746889095 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Management Technology Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideEnhanced oil recoveryAmmoniaProduced waterResidual oilChemical engineeringAqueous solutionEnhanced coal bed methane recoveryEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryWaste managementPetroleum engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistryGeologyCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carbon dioxide flooding of oil fields around the world is proven as a successfully adopted practice in increasing oil production particularly in marginal wells with low production rates. However, the limitations of this technology lie in the limited supply of carbon dioxide, high capital cost, and infrastructure corrosion. In this work, we present an alternative CO2 flooding method which generates CO2 inside the reservoir to increase oil recovery. The process involves the injection of a concentrated CO2 producing solution of ammonium carbamate (AC). Chemical solvent CO2 capture technology was widely used for years. Carbamates were formed when aqueous amines absorbed CO2. The new proposed in situ CO2 generation EOR technique provides a way to directly apply the product of the CO2 capture technology for outstanding tertiary recovery. Ammonium carbamate (CH6N2O2), highly water-soluble chemicals, can dissociate at reservoir temperature producing carbon dioxide and ammonia. The carbon dioxide migrates to the oil phase, causing oil phase swelling and reducing oil viscosity, and therefore increasing oil production. The ammonia dissolves in the water, and the ammonia-water solution increases the water wettability of the rock. Flow experiments were conducted using 6" Ottawa sand packs. The experiments demonstrated that the decomposition of a 35% AC solution injected to the sand packs resulted in further lowering of the residual oil saturation following a standard water flood. The tertiary recovery in the high-pressure sand pack experiments was found to average 27%. In the proposed process, AC can be dissolved in produced reservoir fluids or seawater and injected into the reservoir to generate CO2 in situ and increase oil production as it decomposes. The benefits of this process compared to CO2 flooding lie in the simplicity of adapting this technology to an existing waterflood, and the lack of the complicated infrastructure needed in a typical CO2 project, such as compression and gas handling facilities. An additional advantage lies in the ability to deliver the CO2 in the form of a room temperature solid, alleviating the need for a pipeline.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
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