MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383911571 · doi:10.3390/en16145289

A Novel Multi-Phase Strategy for Optimizing CO2 Utilization and Storage in an Oil Reservoir

2023· article· en· W4383911571 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiangyuan Yao, Wanju Yuan, Xiaolong Peng, Zhuoheng Chen, Yongan Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaPetroleum Technology Research CentreGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringWater injection (oil production)Phase (matter)PerforationEnvironmental scienceInjection wellEnhanced oil recoveryProduction rateGeothermal gradientCompletion (oil and gas wells)Oil productionWellboreGeologyEngineeringProcess engineeringChemistryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an innovative multi-phase strategy is developed and numerically tested to optimize CO2 utilization and storage in an oil reservoir to support low carbon transition. In the first phase, the water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection is conducted to simultaneously store CO2 and produce crude oil in the reservoir from the respective injection and production wells. In the second phase, the injection and production wells are both shut in for some time to allow CO2 and water to be stratigraphically separated. In the third phase, CO2 is injected from the upper part of the reservoir above the separated water layer to displace water downwards, while fluids continue to be produced in the water-dominated zone from the lower part of the production well. Lastly, the production well is finally shut in when the produced gas–water ratio (GWR) reaches 95%, but CO2 injection is kept until the reservoir pressure is close to the fracture pressure of its caprocks. The numerical simulations show that implementing the proposed multi-phase strategy doubles CO2 storage in comparison to applying the WAG injection alone. In particular, 80% of the increased CO2 is stored in the third phase due to the optimized perforation. In addition, the CO2 injection rate in the last phase does not appear to affect the amount of CO2 storage, while a higher CO2 injection rate can reduce the CO2 injection time and accelerate the CO2 storage process. In the proposed strategy, we assume that the geothermal energy resources from the produced fluids can be utilized to offset some energy needs for the operation. The analysis of energy gain and consumption from the simulation found that at the early stage of the CO2-WAG phase, the energy gain mostly comes from the produced oil. At the late stage of the CO2-WAG phase and the subsequent phases, there is very little or even no energy gain from the produced oil. However, the geothermal energy of the produced water and CO2 substantially compensate for the energy loss due to decreasing oil production. As a result, a net energy gain can be achieved from the proposed multi-phase strategy when geothermal energy extraction is incorporated. The new multi-phase strategy and numerical simulation provide insights for practical energy transition and CO2 storage by converting a “to be depleted” oil reservoir to a CO2 storage site and a geothermal energy producer while enhancing oil recovery.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207