MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323657898 · doi:10.2118/212793-ms

CO2 Permeability in Shale Gas Reservoirs: Insights from the Montney Formation

2023· article· en· W4323657898 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Sanlorenzo, Marc Bustin, A. M. M. Bustin, Gareth Chalmers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercritical fluidOil shalePetrophysicsPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringHeliumPorosityRelative permeabilityCarbon dioxideEnhanced oil recoveryGeologyChemistryGeotechnical engineeringMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Montney Formation, in north–eastern British Columbia and western Alberta, is a widely developed, low porosity and permeability shale gas and oil reservoir. Due to existing midstream infrastructure, it is an ideal candidate for CO2 sequestration which can potentially be coupled with CO2 enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (EHR). Extensive petrophysical analyses of representative Montney wells and cores validate that the characteristics of supercritical CO2 are more suitable for sequestration compared to either liquid or gas properties. The producing Montney reservoir has absolute permeabilities to helium in the order of 10−2 to 10−5 millidarcies and porosity ranging from 2.9 to 11.1%. At reservoir pressure and temperature conditions, sequestered carbon dioxide will be in the supercritical state. The measured apparent permeability of representative Montney cores matrix to supercritical CO2 is approximately 3.8×10−4 to 3.4×10−2 mD higher than either gas or liquid CO2 values (apparent supercritical CO2 permeabilities range between 4.0×10−4 and 1.4×10−2 mD). The difference between liquid and gas CO2 permeabilities ranges between 3.2×10−5 and 3.0×10−3 mD. Absolute permeabilities to helium were found to be higher than any of the three CO2 phases. The higher apparent permeability to supercritical CO2 compared to the gas or liquid phase is attributed to the higher molecular kinetic energy and the smaller impact of adsorption compared to gas CO2. Permeability data of gas CO2 show both volumetric and adsorption effects, resulting in a lower apparent permeability compared to both liquid and supercritical CO2. Helium data show the highest permeabilities since helium is a non-adsorbing gas and He molecular diameter is 74 pm smaller than the molecular diameter of CO2. The results of this study show that carbon dioxide in the supercritical state has favourable characteristics for the utilization and sequestration in depleted shale gas and oil plays compared to CO2 in either the liquid or gas phase. The relatively high density of the supercritical state – around 750 kg/m3 – will minimize leakage to adjacent formations. Upon reaching reservoirs’ minimum miscibility pressure, supercritical CO2 interfacial tension will approach zero and thus mixing with the residual liquid hydrocarbons will occur. The CO2 will cause the oil or condensate to swell, reducing the viscosity and thus improving the mobility and production rate of the remaining hydrocarbons in place.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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