Laboratory Experimental Results of Huff ‘n’ Puff CO2 Flooding in a Fractured Core System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the performance and efficiency of CO2 huff-and-puff process for improving oil recovery and subsequent storage of CO2 in fractured porous media is examined and the results of laboratory tests are presented. The experimental set up consisted of a high-pressure stainless steel cell made specially to hold a cylindrical core with spacing around it to simulate fractures surrounding matrix. The matrix was saturated with normal decane, which was used as oil during these experiments. Over six sets of huff-and-puff experiments, using CO2 as solvent, were conducted for pressures of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, and 1500 psi. Each set of the huff-and-puff experiments were conducted by injecting CO2 in the fracture surrounding the core (injection step). Then, the system was shut-in for a period of 24 hours to allow CO2 to diffuse from fracture into the oil in matrix (soaking period step). At the end of soaking period, the pressure was released and the oil production was measured (production step). The above cycle was repeated until no more oil was produced. The results obtained showed that CO2 huff-and-puff process improves the oil production from fractured media, significantly. These results also indicate that the oil recovery is higher for huff-and-puff experiments conducted at higher pressures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".