MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232815722 · doi:10.2118/07-08-01

Genetic Algorithm (GA)-Based Correlations Offer More Reliable Prediction of Minimum Miscibility Pressures (MMP) Between Reservoir Oil and CO2 or Flue Gas

2007· article· en· W4232815722 on OpenAlexaff
M. K. Emera, Farzam Javadpour, Hemanta Sarma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlue gasPetroleum engineeringMiscibilityGenetic algorithmStandard deviationAlgorithmMathematicsEnvironmental scienceMathematical optimizationStatisticsMaterials scienceChemistryEngineeringPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two new genetic algorithm (GA)-based correlations were proposed for more reliable prediction of minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) between reservoir oil and CO2 or flue gas. Both correlations are particularly useful when experimental data are lacking and also in developing an optimal laboratory program to estimate MMP. The key input parameters in a GA-based CO2-oil MMP correlation, in order of their impact, were: reservoir temperature, MW of C5+, and volatiles (C1 and N2) to intermediates (C2-C4, H2S and CO2) ratio. This correlation, which has been successfully validated with published experimental data and compared to common correlations in the literature, offered the best match with the lowest error (5.5%) and standard deviation (7.4%). For a GA-based flue gas-oil MMP correlation, the MMP was regarded as a function of the injected gas solvency into the oil which, in turn, is related to the injected gas critical properties. It has also been successfully validated against published experimental data and compared to several correlations in the literature. It yielded the best match with the lowest average error (4.6%) and standard deviation (6.2%). Moreover, unlike other correlations, it can be used more reliably for gases with high N2 (up to 20%) and non-CO2 components (up to 78%), e.g., H2S, N2, SOx, O2 and C1-C4. Introduction The MMP is a vital design parameter for CO2 miscible flooding projects. It impacts both operational and reservoir engineering aspects during the flood. Therefore, an operator must investigate the effects of various factors on the MMP, and consequently, their eventual impact on the project's operational strategy and surface facilities. The main factors affecting MMP are: reservoir temperature, oil composition and injected gas purity. The reservoir temperature has a big impact on MMP, as the MMP increases with the increase in the temperature and decreases with its decrease(1–3). On the other hand, the oil composition has a significant impact on MMP in that the MMP increases with the increase in oil molecular weight. A high oil volatiles fraction (e.g. C1) in the reservoir oil causes the MMP to rise, whereas a high intermediates (e.g. C2-C4) fraction reduces the MMP(2). Furthermore, the presence of non-CO2 (e.g. H2S, N2, SOx and O2) in the injected gas affects MMP, either raising or lowering it depending on the type of the component. From an operational perspective, the existence of these non-CO2 components in the injected gas should not be treated as a rigid impediment. In fact, the existence of certain components such as H2S and SOx could have a positive impact, as they contribute towards lowering the MMP. The presence of C1 and N2, on the other hand, could be detrimental as they cause the MMP to rise. As the separation of such components from the gas is difficult and costly, the current trend is to use the flue gas stream as it is, provided such impurities are below a certain optimum level. A gas stream containing such non-CO2 components are referred to as either low-purity CO2 or flue gas in the context of this paper.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207