CO2 Huff-n-Puff and Storage in Vaca Muerta Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the co-application of CO2 huff-n-puff (HnP) technology for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and sequestration in Vaca Muerta shale rocks. The rock samples undergo a primary production stage to establish a depleted rock sample before conducting CO2 HnP and storage experiments. This stage is performed using the associated produced hydrocarbon gas under representative reservoir conditions. The primary objective is to identify the key oil-recovery mechanisms during the HnP stage and quantify the CO2 storage capacity in a depleted shale matrix after both primary production and CO2 HnP stages. CO2 HnP is conducted at 5,000 psig with a soaking time of 16 hours, while the CO2 storage experiment is performed at a slightly lower pressure of 4,420 psig with an extended soaking duration of 420 hours to maximize CO2 diffusion into the depleted shale matrix. The findings reveal that CO₂ HnP, despite its shorter soaking interval, enhances incremental oil recovery from the depleted Vaca Muerta shale matrix, though oil recovery during the primary production stage is significantly higher. Solution-gas drive followed by oil vaporization are identified as the dominant oil-recovery mechanisms in both the primary production and CO2 HnP stages. The CO2 storage experiment achieves 48% greater CO2 diffusion compared to the CO2 HnP experiment, primarily due to the extended soaking period and reduced oil in place. The CO₂ storage capacity of the shale core is estimated at 96.1% of the pore volume in the CO2 storage experiment, compared to 65.2% of the pore volume in the CO2 HnP test, where oil production follows CO2 soaking.
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".