MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416041076 · doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104523

Numerical simulation of viscous fingering in CO₂ storage: Addressing the limitations of laboratory-derived relative permeabilities

2025· article· en· W4416041076 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Saeed Ashtari Larki, Arne Skauge, K.S. Sorbie, Eric Mackay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of greenhouse gas control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnergi SimulationHeriot-Watt University
KeywordsViscous fingeringInstabilityCapillary actionRelative permeabilityViscosityComputer simulationDisplacement (psychology)Permeability (electromagnetism)Flow (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• None of the published CO 2 /water Relperms produced pronounced viscous fingering. • The proposed Relperm curves for water and CO 2 successfully generated finger patterns. • The key difference between the proposed and lab-derived relative permeabilities is the total mobility at the shock-front gas saturation. • The experimentally derived Relperm curves in all cases were “over stable”. Gas injection in CCS is an unstable displacement process due to the viscosity contrast between injected gas and in-situ brine, a fact often overlooked in CO₂ storage modelling. Most studies estimating relative permeability (Relperms) for CCS rely on conventional methods. This paper applies a novel approach that explicitly considers viscous instability from injecting low-viscosity gas into more viscous brine. Based on our earlier studies (A. Beteta et al., 2024; Sorbie et al., 2020). viscous fingering is expected under viscous-dominated conditions. While strong capillary forces may suppress fingering at lab scale, the balance of viscous and capillary forces can shift at field scale, leading to pronounced gas fingering. To model CO₂ injection, we used published CO₂/water Relperms from CCS experiments. Two approaches were compared: conventional Relperms estimation and an alternative viscous fingering-based method. Simulations using conventional CO₂/water Relperms showed no fingering patterns, whereas our earlier study indicated that core flood experiments with a water–CO₂ viscosity ratio of ∼55 may generate gas fingers. The second approach, based on maximum mobility, produced gas fingers and matched production and differential pressure equally well. This apparent absence of fingering may suggest limitations in the conventional representation of flow dynamics under such conditions. Possible reasons why experimental relative permeabilities do not capture the expected “fingering behaviour” are discussed in this paper. The main difference between our proposed Relperms and lab derived Relperms is in the total mobility, with our Relperms having a higher total mobility at the shock front gas saturations (S gf ) of CO 2 .

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 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)0.001
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 score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of greenhouse gas controlSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207