Experimental Investigation of the Performance of Low Salinity Carbonated (CO2-Saturated) Brine Injection as a Novel EOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Low-salinity brine injection and carbonated (CO2-enriched) water injection (CWI) are two well-known water-based enhanced oil recovery (EOR) scenarios. The oil recovery mechanisms and potential of each method have been discussed by many researchers. In this study, through the inclusion of CO2 in the low salinity brine or in other words by merging CWI with low salinity brine injection, we are introducing a novel EOR scenario in which we can simultaneously take advantage from the EOR mechanisms of low salinity brine injection and CWI. We called this novel EOR scenario as the low salinity carbonated brine (LSCW) injection. In this study, through a series of integrated high-pressure and high-temperature flooding experiments, as well as contact angle measurements, the oil recovery potential and oil recovery mechanisms of this novel EOR scenario were scrutinized. According to the results, inclusion of CO2 in low-salinity brine enhances the oil recovery performances of CWI and in particular low salinity brine injection. Furthermore, based on our findings, for those types of oil reservoirs, where low salinity brine injection is not very effective for enhancing oil recovery, the inclusion of CO2 into low salinity brine (LSCW) can significantly improve the oil recovery.
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".