MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410563633 · doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2025.103125

Experimental and modeling assessment of CO2 EOR and storage performances in tight oil reservoir, Yanchang oilfield, China

2025· article· en· W4410563633 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of CO2 Utilization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChengdu University of TechnologyNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringTight oilEnhanced oil recoveryTight gasGeologyReservoir simulationEnvironmental scienceHydraulic fracturing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous experimental studies have shown that CO 2 injections can significantly enhance oil recovery in tight oil reservoirs and sequestrate CO 2 permanently. However, performance varies in places when the technologies are scaled up in field pilot tests. Therefore, investigating CO 2 EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) and storage mechanisms during CO 2 injection in field-scale tight sandstone reservoirs is crucial. In this study, laboratory Pressure-Volume-Texperature (PVT) tests and field pilot tests of CO 2 injection in a tight oil reservoir of the Yanchang oilfield in the Ordos Basin were analyzed. Reservoir simulations of CO 2 injections, including continuous and water alternative gas injections, are conducted after history matching. Laboratory PVT results show that oil viscosity decreases from 5.10 to 2.38 mPa·s as pressure reduces from initial formation conditions to atmospheric pressure, and swells oil to 1.50 times at a saturation pressure of 240.0 bar, which is larger than the minimum miscible pressure of 178.0 bar from the slim tube test. Reservoir simulation results of continuous and WAG injection scenarios show that oil production increases with CO 2 injection rate, and oil recovery increments are 21.6 % and 19.3 %, respectively, for Case 3 and Case 5. This is because reservoir pressure increases with more injected CO 2 , resulting in higher displacement efficiency, and larger amounts of CO 2 can also lead to higher sweep efficiency in the lateral directions. However, CO 2 EOR efficiency decreases gradually after the CO 2 breakthrough. In addition, CO 2 migration in the lateral direction relates to the CO 2 injection rate. The areas of dissolved CO 2 are larger than those of gaseous CO 2, especially for WAG cases, while both increase with CO 2 injection rate due to a larger pressure gradient. The amount of CO 2 through structural trapping for the continuous injection cases is higher than solubility trapping, followed by residual trapping. Differently, the amounts of gaseous CO 2 are close to those of the dissolved CO 2 for the WAG cases due to water injection. The findings in this study are significant for understanding and demonstrating the CO 2 EOR, storage mechanisms in lab and field scales, and provide a valuable reference for scaling up the technologies in tight oil reservoirs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it