MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411728983 · doi:10.1016/j.jgsce.2025.205711

Advances in gas injection for gas condensate reservoirs: Mechanisms and challenges

2025· article· en· W4411728983 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGas Science and Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMitacsEquinor
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural gas is a vital energy resource recognized for its cleaner combustion compared to other fossil fuels. A significant proportion of natural gas reserves are gas condensate reservoirs, which exhibit unique thermodynamic behaviors leading to production losses and the retention of valuable hydrocarbons in porous media. Gas injection has emerged as a reliable and environmentally beneficial strategy to enhance recovery from these reservoirs by maintaining pressure and promoting condensate re-vaporization. This review offers a comprehensive analysis of gas injection technologies, including miscible gas injection, Huff-n-Puff, CO 2 injection, and mixed gas injection, customized to various reservoir conditions. The review highlights Huff-n-Puff as a promising method for mitigating condensate blockage during early production, discusses nitrogen injection as a cost-effective and environmentally safer alternative to CO 2 and dry gas, and outlines the key challenges of CO 2 injection, including transport in supercritical form, economic feasibility, and leakage risks. Key contributions of this work include an in-depth discussion of active recovery mechanisms, such as molecular diffusion, bulk convection, and re-vaporization, alongside systematic descriptions of laboratory testing methods for gas condensate characterization. The review also categorizes advancements in modeling, simulation, and experimental studies, highlighting their role in addressing both technical and practical challenges. Furthermore, it explores field applications, environmental impacts, and economic considerations of gas injection, offering insights into sustainable recovery practices. By consolidating global data, field experiences, and recovery techniques, this study identifies critical gaps in current knowledge and provides a framework for optimizing gas injection in gas condensate 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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