MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806349122 · doi:10.2118/187356-pa

Interplay Between Permeability Retardation and Capillary Trapping of Rising Carbon Dioxide in Storage Reservoirs

2018· article· en· W2806349122 on OpenAlexafffund
Bo Ren, Jennifer M. Delaney, Larry W. Lake, Steven L. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCapillary actionCapillary pressureTrappingPermeability (electromagnetism)Relative permeabilityPorous mediumSaturation (graph theory)ChemistryMechanicsCarbon dioxideMaterials scienceSoil sciencePorosityGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComposite materialMembranePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The main objective of this work is to understand, by analytical and numerical study, how permeability retardation interacts with capillary-barrier trapping to cause accumulation as carbon dioxide (CO2) migrates upward in saline aquifers during geological sequestration. The study is of one-dimensional (1D) two-phase (CO2 and water) countercurrent flow. The analytical model describes CO2 buoyant migration and accumulation at a “flow-barrier zone” (low permeability) above a “flow-path zone” (high permeability). The relative importance of permeability retardation and capillary trapping is examined under different magnitudes of buoyant-source fluxes and porous-media properties. In the limiting case of zero capillary pressure, the model equation is solved using the method of characteristics (MOC). Permeability-retarded accumulation, induced by the permeability difference between the flow path and the barrier zone, is illustrated through CO2-saturation profiles and time/distance diagrams. Capillary trapping is subsequently accounted for by graphically incorporating a capillary pressure curve and capillary-threshold effect. Results demonstrate that the accumulation contributions from both the permeability hindrance and capillary trapping are convolved at sufficiently large fluxes. At a given time, the total CO2 accumulated by permeability hindrance is greater than that accumulated by capillary trapping, but the former approaches the latter at large time. The low-permeability zone need not be completely impermeable for accumulation to occur. We demonstrate that considering only capillary trapping understates the amount of CO2 accumulated beneath low-permeability structures during significant periods of a sequestration operation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207