A simulation research on evaluation of development in shale oil reservoirs by near-miscible CO<sub>2</sub> flooding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shale oil is a key resource that could mitigate the impending energy shortage in the future. Despite its abundance in China, studies on shale oil are still at the preliminary stage. Shale oil development through CO2 flooding has been successfully implemented in the United States. Therefore, the mechanics of CO2 flooding in shale oil reservoirs should be investigated. This study applies a simulation method to evaluate the development efficiency of CO2 flooding in shale oil reservoirs. Near-miscible CO2 flooding can effectively develop shale oil. After 20 years, recovery could improve by up to 9.56% as a result of depletion development under near-miscible CO2 flooding with 0.5% pore volume gas injection. Horizontal well injection is better than vertical well injection in terms of sweep efficiency and recovery. Cyclic gas injection is superior to continuous gas injection because the former reduces gas channelling. Thus, the use of horizontal wells with near-miscible cyclic gas injections has the potential to effectively develop shale oil reservoirs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".