MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220677007 · doi:10.2118/208933-ms

A Step-Change Improvement in Fluid Diversion, Oil Sweep Efficiency, and CO2 Storage Using Novel Nanoparticle-Based Foam

2022· article· en· W4220677007 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Telmadarreie, Christopher Johnsen, Steven L. Bryant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceEnhanced oil recoveryPorous mediumPermeability (electromagnetism)Pulmonary surfactantPetroleum engineeringPorosityFoaming agentNanoparticleComposite materialChemical engineeringNanotechnologyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A significant amount of hydrocarbon in reservoirs is inaccessible even after deploying enhanced oil recovery methods such as gas, water, and chemical injections. Foams have been used for mobility control and fluid diversion for gas-based enhanced oil recovery, but they often lack stability in reservoir conditions. This study introduces the application of highly stable nanoparticle-based foam (nanofoam) for gas and water diversion and improving sweep efficiency and CO2 storage. A series of flow experiments in uniquely designed dual porous media were performed to investigate the performance of nanofoam in fluid diversion, sweep improvement, and CO2 storage. A permeability contrast of 5 was created to mimic the heterogeneity and fluid diversion capability of different fluids including CO2 gas, water, surfactant-based CO2 foam, and nanofoam. High permeability and low permeability porous media were saturated with water and oil (viscosity of 20 cp) respectively, mimicking a swept thief zone and bypassed oil zone. Two different types of nanoparticles were used to stabilize the nanofoam (silica-based and cellulose-based nanoparticles). These nanofoams were compared with a conventional foam stabilized only by surfactant. Due to high mobility contrast, injecting CO2 and water resulted only in displacement of water from the high permeability core, with negligible flow into the oil-saturated core. Foam was then injected with the intention of preferentially filling the high permeability core, so that subsequent CO2/water injection would be diverted into the oil-saturated core. Although surfactant foam generated relatively strong foam, it failed to divert subsequent water/CO2 into the oil-saturated core. The amount of oil recovery and additional CO2 storage was minimal. On the other hand, nanofoam (made with either type of nanoparticles) diverted both water and CO2 to the low permeability media improving oil recovery and increasing CO2 storage. Compared to pure CO2/water injection, nanofoam enhanced the incremental oil recovery by 40% of original oil in place with additional CO2 storage. This study reveals that an engineered designed nanofoam could result in step-change improvement of conventional foams performance hence delivering the results desired in field applications. A highly stable foam can play an important role to access more pore space for CO2 storage and which is inaccessible otherwise without drilling new wells.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
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

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→