A Review of Phase Behavior Mechanisms of CO<sub>2</sub> EOR and Storage in Subsurface Formations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emissions of CO2 have been recognized as the main cause of climate change. As an important strategy being used to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) has attracted significant attention in recent years. Geological formations, including depleted oil and gas reservoirs and saline aquifers, are popular CO2 storage options. During the process of CO2 storage in subsurface formations, the interactions between CO2 and formation fluids must be considered as they could greatly affect the CO2 trapping mechanisms and CO2 storage capacity. In this paper, we give a brief review of the phase behavior mechanisms associated with CO2 storage in subsurface formations. Two different CO2-storage strategies are considered in this paper: CO2 storage in saline aquifers and CO2 storage in oil reservoirs. Multiphase equilibria, including two-phase, three-phase, and four-phase equilibria, can be observed during CO2 injection into underground formations. Both the experimental and modeling studies on the related phase behavior mechanisms are included in this Review. We also introduce some recently developed robust algorithms for the multiphase equilibria calculations, which could be essential for the design of the CO2 storage process and prediction of CO2 storage capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".