The potential for CO2 storage in residual oil zones in onshore Australian basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geoscience Australia and CSIRO have collaborated to investigate whether residual oil zones (ROZs), sometimes associated with conventional Australian hydrocarbon plays, could provide a carbon dioxide (CO2) storage resource and enhance the storage capacity of depleted fields. Our petrophysical study demonstrates that ROZs occur in Australia’s hydrocarbon-rich regions, particularly in the Cooper-Eromanga Basin. ROZs with more than 10% residual oil saturation are uncommon, likely due to small original oil columns and lower residual saturations retained in sandstone reservoirs than in classic, carbonate-hosted North American ROZs. Extensive, reservoir-quality rock is found below the deepest occurring conventional oil in many of the fields in the Eromanga Basin, potentially offering significant CO2 storage capacity. Multiphase compositional flow modelling was used to estimate the CO2 storage efficiency of typical Australian ROZs. We developed a novel modelling methodology that first captures oil migration events leading to the formation of ROZs. Modelling CO2 storage over a 20-year injection period demonstrates that CO2-oil interactions increase the density and viscosity of CO2, enhancing CO2 sweep efficiency and lateral flow, improving storage efficiency. The extent of these effects depends on the quantity and spatial distribution of residual oil in place and the miscibility of CO2 at reservoir conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".