MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323657038 · doi:10.2118/212720-ms

Evaluation of Produced Hydrocarbons Composition During Cyclic CO2 Injection (Huff-N-Puff) in Artificially-Fractured Shale Core Sample

2023· article· en· W4323657038 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amin Ghanizadeh, Chengyao Song, Jaime César, Chunqing Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleCore samplePermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringPorositySpark plugGeologyDifferential pressureHydraulic fracturingFluid dynamicsCore (optical fiber)In situHydrocarbonMineralogyMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryComposite materialMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural and hydraulic fractures are important contributors to production performance of low-permeability (‘tight’) hydrocarbon reservoirs during primary and enhanced oil recovery. Laboratory studies that have investigated core-scale huff-n-puff (HNP) processes in ‘fractured’ cores are rare, and focused on ‘rock’ analysis primarily, as opposed to ‘fluid’ analysis. The objective of this proof-of-concept experimental study is to evaluate the application of a new core-scale HNP technique, ‘flow-through-frac’, for tracking compositional evolution of produced liquid hydrocarbons during cyclic gas (CO2 herein) injection in ‘fractured’ low-permeability oil reservoirs. The flow-through-frac technique reproduces the near-fracture conditions during a typical HNP process, with significantly faster testing times (25-50%) compared to conventional techniques (e.g., flow-around). The experimental procedure includes: 1) artificially fracturing core plug sample under differential stress to simulate an induced fracture, 2) saturating the fractured core with de-waxed in-situ (formation) oil, and 3) implementing multiple cycles of gas (e.g., CO2, produced gas) injection, soaking and production. To determine whether this technique can detect compositional variations despite its short duration, the compositions of the original in-situ (dead) oil and produced liquid hydrocarbon sample were compared after a typical core-scale HNP process (4 cycles) using CO2. A low-porosity (3.3%), low-permeability (1.25·10−4 md) Duvernay shale (western Canada) core plug sample was analyzed in this study. Compared to the in-situ (dead) oil, lighter components (C7-C11) were significantly (up to an order of magnitude) leaner in the oil sample produced after 4 cycles of CO2 HNP (fractured core plug). The lighter the hydrocarbon components, the leaner the concentrations in the produced oil. The intermediate components (C12-C28) were enriched in the produced oil, with larger discrepancies for C14-C22 components. The latter observation is attributed to the replacement of adsorbed C17-C19 components by injected CO2, in agreement with recent molecular simulation and experimental studies. The concentrations of heavier components (C29-C33) were similar between the in-situ and produced oil samples. Through combining core-scale CO2 HNP and fluid sampling/testing, this work demonstrates that the flow-through-fracture method can detect compositional variations during a typical core-scale HNP experiment. This technique can enable operators to track the composition of produced hydrocarbons at near-fracture conditions at a significantly shorter time frame (25–50%) than the existing methods. This integrated rock and fluid experimental program could potentially become valuable to not only core-based evaluation of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in unconventional oil reservoirs but also potentially coupled CO2/produced gas EOR and sequestration processes in fractured shale reservoirs.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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