Feasibility study of CO2 sequestration by high quality foam at the late development stage of high water-cut reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to store CO2 efficiently and safely, the innovative approach of storing CO2 in the water cut reservoirs entering the later stage of heavy oil development through high quality foam was proposed.Due to the high apparent viscosity of foam, the heterogeneity of reservoir was regulated, the CO2 mobility was controlled, and the CO2 storage efficiency was increased.In this paper, the influence of foam quality and reservoir permeability on CO2 storage efficiency and oil recovery was researched through sandpack model experiment.In addition, in order to truly simulate the water-cut reservoir, the three-dimensional model was designed.The variation laws of gas saturation, mobility reduction coefficient, and CO2 storage water consumption with the foam quality were summarized.The experimental results indicated that when the foam quality was 85%, the gas saturation of the water-cut reservoir was the highest, reached 75.36%, reflecting the high CO2 storage efficiency and the mobility control ability.Moreover, the water consumption for CO2 storage also dropped to the lowest, reached 43.88 g•mol -1 , representing the high quality foam has good CO2 storage ability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".