MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108414386 · doi:10.1007/s13202-020-01052-7

Influence of CO2 retention mechanism storage in Alberta tight oil and gas reservoirs at Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, Canada: hysteresis modeling and appraisal

2020· article· en· W3108414386 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringGreenhouse gasCarbon sequestrationEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxideGeologyCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Sedimentary rockTight oilUnconventional oilOil shaleClimate changeGeochemistryWaste managementChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rapid combustion of fossil fuels in huge quantities resulted in the enormous release of CO 2 in the atmosphere. Subsequently, leading to the greenhouse gas effect and climate change and contemporarily, quest and usage of fossil fuels has increased dramatically in recent times. The only solution to resolve the problem of CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere is geological/subsurface storage of carbon dioxide or carbon capture and storage (CCS). Additionally, CO 2 can be employed in the oil and gas fields for enhanced oil recovery operations and this cyclic form of the carbon dioxide injection into reservoirs for recovering oil and gas is known as CO 2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery (EOGR). Hence, this paper presents the CO 2 retention dominance in tight oil and gas reservoirs in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) of the Alberta Province, Canada. Actually, hysteresis modeling was applied in the oil and gas reservoirs of WCSB for sequestering or trapping CO 2 and EOR as well. Totally, four cases were taken for the investigation, such as WCSB Alberta tight oil and gas reservoirs with CO 2 huff-n-puff and flooding processes. Actually, Canada has complex geology and therefore, implicate that it can serve as a promising candidate that is suitable and safer place for CO 2 storage. Furthermore, injection pressure, time, rate (mass), number of cycles, soaking time, fracture half-length, conductivity, porosity, permeability, and initial reservoir pressure were taken as input parameters and cumulative oil production and oil recovery factor are the output parameters, this is mainly for tight oil reservoirs. In the tight gas reservoirs, only the output parameters differ from the oil reservoir, such as cumulative gas production and gas recovery factor. Reservoirs were modelled to operate for 30 years of oil and gas production and the factor year was designated as decision-making unit (DMU). CO 2 retention was estimated in all four models and overall the gas retention in four cases showed a near sinusoidal behavior and the variations are sporadic. More than 80% CO 2 retention in these tight formations were achieved and the major influencing factors that govern the CO 2 storage in these tight reservoirs are injection pressure, time, mass, number of cycles, and soaking time. In general, the subsurface geology of the Canada is very complex consisting with many structural and stratigraphic layers and thus, it offers safe location for CO 2 storage through retention mechanism and increasing the efficiency and reliability of oil and gas extraction from these complicated subsurface formations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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