Capillary pinning in sedimentary rocks for CO2 storage: Mechanisms, terminology and State-of-the-Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capillary pinning refers to the immobilization of CO₂ at capillary barriers when the uprising CO 2 pressure is lower than the capillary entry pressure of the overlaying pore throats. Also known as local capillary trapping, it has been proposed as a fifth geologic CO₂ storage mechanism, alongside structural, solubility, residual, and mineral trapping. Despite extensive research, the fragmented terminology surrounding capillary pinning has led to confusion, making it challenging to synthesize findings effectively. Often conflated with mechanisms such as residual and hysteresis trapping, capillary pinning is commonly underestimated or completely overlooked in reservoir-scale models. Furthermore, difficulties in characterizing and upscaling small-scale geologic heterogeneities that influence capillary pinning contribute to significant uncertainties, with estimates of CO₂ trapped via this mechanism ranging from 3 % to 100 % of total CO₂ trapped via capillary actions. This review explores the fundamental mechanisms, experimental findings, and modeling approaches for assessing CO₂ capillary pinning in carbon capture and storage (CCS). It seeks to bridge the gap between the reservoir engineering community, with its extensive expertise in hydrocarbon recovery but that needs adjustments for CCS applications, and the subsurface storage community, which stands to benefit from this knowledge but often lacks access to relevant literature. Additionally, the study identifies key research opportunities to advance the understanding of capillary pinning in sedimentary rocks, ultimately enhancing the efficacy and reliability of CCS operations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".