MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200074341 · doi:10.2118/207224-ms

Experimental Investigation of Hydrocarbon Gas Huff-N-Puff Injection into the Live-Oil Window of Eagle Ford

2021· article· en· W4200074341 on OpenAlexaff
Jyun‐Syung Tsau, Qinwen Fu, Reza Ghahfarokhi Barati, José Zaghloul, Amanda Baldwin, Kyle Bradford, Brian Nicoud, J. D. Mohrbacher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocarbonPetroleum engineeringEagleGas oil ratioEnvironmental scienceCore (optical fiber)Natural gasSpark plugUnconventional oilFossil fuelChemistryGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The hydrocarbon gas huff and puff (HnP) technique has been used to improve oil production in unconventional oil reservoirs where excess capacity of produced gas is available and hydrocarbon prices are in a range to result in an economically viable case. Eagle Ford (EF) is one of the largest unconventional oil plays in the United State where HnP has been applied for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at reservoirs within various oil windows. Our previously published Huff-n-puff results on dead oil with produced gas from Eagle Ford (EF) showed the recovery factor of hydrocarbon varying from 40 to 58%. The objective of this paper is to extend the experiments to live oil with EF core plugs to investigate the mechanisms of HnP which are affected by the composition of injected gas and resident oil, injection and soaking time as well as injection/depletion pressure gradient. Eagle Ford live oil and natural gas produced from the target area were used for HnP tests. Four representative core plugs were used with the tests conducted at reservoir conditions (125 °C and 3,500 psi). The live oil experiments with four reservoir core plugs showed an improvement in oil recovery with recovery factor (RF) varying from 19.5 to 33 % in six cycles of HnP, whereas the primary depletion on the same core plug showed RF below 11 %. A lower recovery factor of HnP from live oil saturated core in this study was observed as compared to dead oil saturated core reported in a previous publication. It is attributed to a lesser diffusion effect on mass transfer between injected gas and resident oil when the core is saturated with live oil. This behavior is displayed by the pressure decline curve during the first soaking period. A sharper diffusion pressure decline occurred in the dead oil saturated core plug where a higher concentration gradient between injected gas and resident oil drives a faster gas transport into the oil due to the molecular diffusion during the soaking period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→