Experimental study of enhanced oil recovery by CO2 huff-n-puff in shales and tight sandstones with fractures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fractures and kerogen, which generally exist in the shale, are significant to the CO 2 huff-n-puff in the shale reservoir. It is important to study the effects of fractures and kerogen on oil recovery during CO 2 huff-n-puff operations in the fracture–matrix system. In this study, a modified CO 2 huff-n-puff experiment method is developed to estimate the recovery factors and the CO 2 injectivity in the fractured organic-rich shales and tight sandstones. The effects of rock properties, injection pressure, and injection time on the recovery factors and CO 2 usage efficiency in shales and sandstones are discussed, respectively. The results show that although the CO 2 injectivity in the shale is higher than that in the sandstone with the same porosity; besides, the recovery factors of two shale samples are much lower than that of two sandstone samples. This demonstrates that compared with the tight sandstone, more cycles are needed for the shale to reach a higher recovery factor. Furthermore, there are optimal injection pressures (close to the minimum miscible pressure) and CO 2 injection volumes for CO 2 huff-n-puff in the shale. Since the optimal CO 2 injection volume in the shale is higher than that in the sandstone, more injection time is needed to enhance the oil recovery in the shale. There is a reference sense for CO 2 huff-n-puff in the fractured shale oil reservoir for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes.
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.
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 it