MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361860897 · doi:10.2118/0223-0010-jpt

Guest Editorial: Recycling CO2 for EOR? Why Not?

2023· editorial· en· W4361860897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ole Tveiten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryGreenhouse gasCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Environmental scienceGovernment (linguistics)European commissionCommissionFossil fuelConference of the partiesBusinessNatural resource economicsWaste managementEngineeringClimate changeEuropean unionFinanceInternational tradeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

_ Carbon capture and storage (CCS), with the potential for usage, will be crucial if the world is to prevent global warming. Modeling by the European Commission shows that the EU will need to capture, utilize, or store between 300 and 640 million tonnes of CO2 every year by 2050 if it wants to meet its climate-neutrality goal. It is therefore imperative that all industries, particularly the oil and gas sector, play their part to incentivize the development of new storage while enhancing the use of available producing facilities. Speaking at the second CCUS Forum, held in October in Oslo, Norway, the EU’s energy chief Kadri Simson announced that captured emissions can be either stored or recycled into other industrial processes. Though it wasn’t directly stated by the Estonian politician, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) via CO2 injection should be considered as a viable option to both store and reduce emissions. It is important to emphasize that the amount of stored CO2, as a function of EOR, will be greater than CO2 emissions created from oil extraction. CO2 for EOR in US and Canada Since the 1970s, this has been a routine procedure in many US and Canadian projects with mature reservoirs and is usually instigated after the effect of injected produced water has worn off. It has been achieved without government support. While Norway has been injecting captured CO2 in saline aquifers since the mid-1990s, there has been no attempt, and no plans exist, in Europe to use CO2 for EOR. Why not? Balancing increasing energy demand while lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the greatest conundrums facing the industry today: global consumption is currently around 100 million B/D. According to IEA’s 2022 World Energy Outlook, there are three scenarios. The APS (announced pledges scenario) assumes fossil-fuel demand will peak in 2024 with 98.1 million B/D. The STEPS (stated policies scenario) projection is peak demand in 2035 at 103.2 million B/D, before going into steady long-term decline (Fig. 1). If the NZE (net zero emissions) scenario comes to pass, oil demand never returns to its 2019 level. It foresees demand falling by 2.5% each year on average between 2021 and 2030, and by just under 6% each year from 2030 to 2050. Adopting EOR technologies and upscaling CCS infrastructure could be the answer to meet energy demand and lower emissions before green energy claims the forecast largest stake of the energy mix by mid-century. Exploiting Hydrocarbon’s Heritage and CCS Globally, there are 30 CCS projects in operation, 11 are under construction, and 153 are in development. Sixty-one new facilities were added to the project pipeline in 2022. The CO2 capture capacity of all CCS facilities has grown to 244 mtpa, a rise of 44% over the past 12 months (Global CCS Institute 2022).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0160.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.018

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207