Comparative investigation of the static and dynamic properties of CO<sub>2</sub> foam and N<sub>2</sub> foam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foam flood using CO 2 can both enhance oil recovery and achieve geological storage of CO 2 , which has attracted increasing attention in the last two decades. This work systematically investigates the behaviours of CO 2 and N 2 foams both in bulk and porous media by static foam tests and core flood experiments. The stability and foamability of CO 2 and N 2 foams were compared in static foam tests. The foam texture showed that CO 2 foam bubbles were relatively larger and exhibited a wider size distribution than N 2 foam bubbles, which was detrimental to foam stability. Furthermore, steady‐state foam flows of CO 2 and N 2 foams at a fixed liquid flow rates were comparatively investigated with a foam quality range of 30–98 %. The difference between CO 2 foam stability and N 2 foam stability in porous media was relatively smaller, compared with the difference in bulk. Additionally, the analysis of foam rheology showed that foam exhibited different non‐Newtonian flow characteristics at different foam qualities, and the resistance to shearing of CO 2 foam was lower than that of N 2 foam. Finally, the results of foam flood experiments demonstrated that the oil recoveries of CO 2 foam were lower than those of N 2 foam with a co‐injection strategy under both subcritical and supercritical conditions. Compared with results in the atmosphere environment, the oil recovery of CO 2 foam flood was higher under supercritical conditions.
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".