MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293187490 · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.877212

Dual Benefits of Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Sequestration: The Impact of CO2 Injection Approach on Oil Recovery

2022· article· en· W4293187490 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Energy Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKing Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryInjectorOil in placeResidual oilInjection wellCarbon sequestrationAquiferWater injection (oil production)Environmental scienceCarbon dioxideEnhanced coal bed methane recoveryViscous fingeringOil viscosityWaste managementGeologyViscosityMaterials sciencePetroleumEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringPorous mediumChemistryGroundwaterPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injection of CO 2 to enhance oil recovery is widely used due to its multiple advantages such as mobilizing the oil and sequestration of carbon dioxide. Injection of CO 2 can enhance oil recovery by reducing oil viscosity and improving overall fluid mobility. However, several problems are associated with CO 2 injection such as viscous fingering, gravity override, and CO 2 channeling that results in early gas breakthrough, low sweep efficiency, and low ultimate oil recovery. In this study, dual benefits of CO 2 injection are presented: enhancing oil recovery and sequestering carbon dioxide. In this work, different scenarios of field scale simulation were conducted to evaluate oil recovery during CO 2 injection, and the CMG (Computer Modeling Group) software package was used. Three main scenarios were examined which are CO 2 injection into the reservoir, CO 2 injection into the aquifer, and CO 2 injection into the aquifer followed by waterflooding. Also, three well configurations were utilized—all injectors and producers are drilled vertically, all wells are drilled horizontally, and vertical injectors and horizontal producers are used. Therefore, the oil recovery profiles were examined for nine scenarios over a 20-year period. In all simulated models, CO 2 injection was started at the residual oil saturation (S or ) conditions, to represent the cases of depleted oil reservoirs. The results indicated that the highest oil recovery of 73% of the original oil-in-place (OOIP) can be achieved by injecting CO 2 into the reservoir, utilizing vertical injectors and producers. While injecting CO 2 into aquifers can significantly enhance oil recovery by around 68–70% of the OOIP, using horizontal wells can provide more oil recovery (67.7%) than that using vertical wells (54.8%), in the same conditions. Moreover, around 7,928 tons of carbon dioxide can be sequestered in underground formations, on average. Finally, CO 2 injection outperformed the conventional waterflooding, where 68 and 12% of the OOIP were obtained, respectively. Overall, injection of CO 2 into the depleted reservoir can provide dual benefits of CO 2 sequestration and improved oil recovery. CO 2 can be injected into the water zone resulting in a slow release of CO 2 which will reduce the fluid viscosity, enhance oil recovery, and reduce the greenhouse effect.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.269 · 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