Parametric Study of the Cyclic CO<sub>2</sub>Injection Process in Light Oil Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance of cyclic CO 2 injection as an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique in a light crude oil system was experimentally investigated. Series of cyclic CO 2 injection tests were designed and carried out at various operating conditions. Effects of parameters including operating pressure ( P op ), injection time ( t inj ), soaking period ( t soaking ) and connate water saturation ( S wc ) were investigated on the oil recovery factor (RF) of cyclic injection tests. First, the CO 2 solubility in the crude oil sample and the oil swelling factor as a result of CO 2 dissolution into the oil phase for the crude oil–CO 2 system at temperatures T = 21 and 30 °C were determined. Second, the equilibrium interfacial tension of the crude oil–CO 2 system at T = 30 °C was measured. Afterward, the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) between crude oil and CO 2 was calculated by means of the vanishing interfacial tension (VIT) technique and found to be MMP = 9.18 MPa. Finally, a total of 12 cyclic CO 2 injection tests were performed at operating pressures P op = 5.38, 6.55, and 8.27 MPa (i.e., immiscible to near-miscible conditions), and constant temperature T = 30 °C and in the presence and absence of connate water saturation. CO 2 injection time and soaking period were varied at each operating pressure in order to determine how these parameters might affect the performance of cyclic CO 2 injection. According to the obtained experimental results, it was found that the oil recovery factor of the cyclic CO 2 injection technique increases considerably with increased operating pressure (e.g., from RF = 32.6% at P op = 5.38 MPa to RF = 54.4% at P op = 8.27 MPa). The results also demonstrated that the oil recovery factor increases by a longer soaking period particularly if the cyclic CO 2 injection performed at lower operating pressures. Moreover, it was observed that the oil recovery factor is independent of CO 2 injection time. In addition, at each operating pressure, the oil recovery factor obtained in the presence of connate water saturation was found to be more than that when there was no connate water saturation in the system.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".