MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955074542 · doi:10.2118/0719-0068-jpt

Technology Focus: CO2 (July 2019)

2019· article· en· W2955074542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sunil Kokal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringUnconventional oilHydraulic fracturingTight oilEnhanced oil recoveryOil productionFossil fuelOil sandsDrillingProduction (economics)Completion (oil and gas wells)Environmental scienceDirectional drillingPeak oilOil reservesPetroleum industryGeologyPetroleumEngineeringWaste managementClimate changeOil shaleEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus In my last two Technology Focus columns, I discussed CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and the challenges it faces in conventional oil reservoirs. In this entry, my focus is on its applications in unconventional reservoirs. Oil and gas production from unconventional resources has changed the dynamics of the world oil supply, particularly in the US. This has changed the US from a declining oil producer to one of the highest oil producers in the world. Oil production from unconventional reservoirs is still a challenge and depends on a number of factors, including brute force, for drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Production from these reservoirs declines rapidly, and more wells have to be drilled to keep production at reasonable levels. Recovery, by some estimates, can be less (sometimes much less) than 10%. Currently, the number of wells drilled in unconventional reservoirs exceeds 100,000, and many are producing just a trickle of hydrocarbons. In recent years, some effort has been made to use EOR techniques, particularly CO2 injection, to extract additional oil and gas from unconventional resources. This is by no means a trivial feat. It has the potential to change the dynamics (again) of oil production from these tight and difficult reservoirs. Considerable research and laboratory studies have been conducted addressing the use and potential of CO2 in extracting hydrocarbons from unconventional reservoirs. Estimates of oil recovery range from an additional 10% up to more than 50%. Very few field trials have been conducted, but the use of CO2 in these reservoirs is promising. The recommended papers that follow present examples of laboratory studies, taking the results to the field, and mechanistic studies that elucidate some of the factors to consider and the pros and cons of CO2-EOR in unconventionals. They are meant to be a starting point for better understanding and further research. What the industry needs at this stage is more-daring EOR field trials reminiscent of the risks taken by the pioneers of unconventional resources at the beginning of this century. Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org. SPE 191780 Enhanced Oil Recovery in Eagle Ford: Opportunities Using Huff ’n’ Puff Technique in Unconventional Reservoirs by Piyush Pankaj, Schlumberger, et al. OTC 28973 Recent Advances in Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Technologies for Unconventional Oil Reservoirs by S. Balasubramanian, University of Houston, et al. SPE 192734 Miscibility Effects on Performance of Cyclic CO2 Injection in Hysteretic Tight Oil Reservoirs by Yasaman Assef, University of Calgary, et al.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207