MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6886027160 · doi:10.14288/1.0441421

Petrophysics, carbon dioxide sequestration, and storage potential of Montney Formation’s shale oil and shale gas pools, with implications for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery

2024· article· en· W6886027160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleSupercritical fluidCarbon dioxideHydrocarbonCarbon sequestrationPetroleumRelative permeabilityGreen River FormationDolomite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Storage of carbon dioxide in depleted shale reservoirs represents a great opportunity to mitigate climate change events by offsetting part of the CO₂ emissions from the energy sector. The Montney Formation is a widely developed, low porosity and permeability unconventional shale oil and gas reservoir in northeastern British Columbia and western Alberta. Due to existing midstream infrastructure, it is an ideal candidate for CO₂ sequestration, which can potentially be coupled with CO₂-enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (EHR). This thesis investigates the potential to store carbon dioxide within representative Montney shale oil and gas pools, and coupling CO₂ sequestration with EHR. The Montney Formation is primarily composed of quartz and dolomite, although their relative abundances are spatially and stratigraphically variable. Clay content (< 20 wt.%) is comprised of exclusively non-swelling clays, and organic matter is found in trace amounts (< 5 wt.%). Exposure to supercritical CO₂-rich water has a negligible impact on mineral abundances, with only notable changes in calcite and dolomite wt.%. Apparent supercritical CO₂ matrix permeability, ranging between 3.45×10⁻⁴ to 4.07×10⁻² mD, is greater than the apparent gas and liquid CO₂ permeabilities. The higher apparent matrix permeability to supercritical CO₂ compared to the gas or liquid phase is attributed to the properties of the supercritical phase and the higher molecular kinetic energy, which promotes slip flow on the pore walls. The low permeability of the Montney Formation, coupled with the high capillary entry pressure, ensures that the injected CO₂ will be contained within the formation with insignificant leakage risks. Carbon dioxide storage capacities vary among investigated Montney pools. The Northern Montney pool has a significant storage capacity but exhibits poor reservoir properties for CO₂ storage compared to the Kakwa and Waskahigan Montney pools. Exploiting CO₂ injection for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery provides an opportunity to support more carbon-neutral hydrocarbon production with subsequent CO₂ storage. Supercritical CO₂ and a propane/butane (C₃/C₄) hydrocarbon mixture prove effective in recovering liquid hydrocarbons, with the C₃/C₄ mixture outperforming CO₂ at early Huff and Puff cycles and at heavy hydrocarbon mobilization. Supercritical CO₂ remains a viable recovery agent, recovering between 70 and 90% of the 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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→