Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Coupled optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration and CO2 enhanced

oil recovery
Shahrokh Bahrami Kashkooli a, Asghar Gandomkar a, *, Masoud Riazi b, **, M. Sadegh Tavallali a, c
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
b
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Research Centre, IOR/EOR Research Institute, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
c
Department of Advanced Calculations, Chemical, Petroleum & Polymer Engineering Research Center, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: CO2 injection into hydrocarbon reservoirs can simultaneously pave the path for two important processes, namely
CO2 sequestration oil production increase, and CO2 storage. This combined optimization problem can be referred to as carbon
Gas storage efficiency capture and storage - enhanced oil recovery (CCS-EOR) problem. CCS-EOR is a challenging task with many
Enhanced oil recovery
opportunities which should be studied in a timely manner. Moreover, the attitude of the management team
Optimization
Compositional simulation
towards prioritizing CCS or EOR should be considered. Therefore, in the current study, CCS-EOR problem was
addressed by utilizing the dynamic well flow settings (bottom-hole pressure and/or flow rate) as the optimization
variables with a weighted objective function. This approach was tested on a case study. Its huge simulation time
due to high dimensionality remained a serious challenge. One effective approach was to use the underlying
applied knowledge of the system and extract that wisdom to reduce the simulation time in a rational manner.
CO2 breakthrough time was such a knowledge. Therefore, the importance of CO2 breakthrough time was
stressed, and the understanding of the response of the simulator to this event was used to considerably reduce the
simulation time in a black box approach. Moreover, a concise sensitivity analysis was performed which helped to
schedule the workflow based on the given priority to each process. The optimized case could improve the
objective value and gas storage efficiency up to 2.86 % and 12.1 % respectively. The obtained results can be used
to analyze a variety of operational matters such as the CO2 distribution map in the reservoir, and the well
settings.

1. Introduction
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2015) , the
world energy demand will increase by 37 % from its current level by
2040. A major portion of the total energy will continue to depend on
fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal). Some statistics predict that the worldwide
oil demand will increase by 20 % by 2040 (Nilsson, 2016). In line with
these predictions, the forecasts of an international panel on climate
change show that the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration will reach
570 ppm in 2100, which can lead to an average global temperature in­
crease of 1.9 ◦ C and this greenhouse gas emission will cause many seen
and unseen problems for humans through climate change. Mitigating
the drawbacks of these events has attracted the attention of the global
public opinion (Safarzadeh and Motahhari, 2014; Asghari and Al-Dliwe,
2005; Le Gallo et al., 2002; Javaheri et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2012). As
fossil fuels are continuously consumed as energy source, an option for
reducing CO2 is the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology
(Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008) by capturing, separating and diverting it
into geological formations (Bachu, 2003).
Geological storage of CO2 is achieved through a combination of
physical and chemical trapping mechanisms that are effective over
different timeframes and scales (He et al., 2016). Options for geologic
storage include deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs and
inaccessible coal seams (Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008; Wang et al., 2013;
Kim et al., 2017). Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are prime candidates
for CO2 storage in the existing oil production facilities (He et al., 2016;
Barrufet et al., 2010). Despite the negative role of CO2 in climate change,
CO2 is an attractive displacing agent for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
due to its relatively low minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) in a wide
range of crude oils. Since a large portion of the injected CO2 remains in

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: agandomkar@shirazu.ac.ir (A. Gandomkar), mriazi@shirazu.ac.ir (M. Riazi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109257
Received 10 July 2020; Received in revised form 15 July 2021; Accepted 18 July 2021
Available online 21 July 2021
0920-4105/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
place in depleted reservoirs after CO2-EOR, it is a low cost option to
permanently sequester CO2 (Dai et al., 2017; Budinis et al., 2018;
Allinson et al., 2017). In fact, incremental profitability of such projects
due to increased oil production helps to offset the cost of CO2 seques­
tration (Bachu, 2003). Governments also can use financial incentives
(for instance tax rating or waiver) to motivate such projects (Jiang et al.,
2019). Optimization can be a key tool for simultaneously utilizing the
reservoir storage capacity for CO2 sequestration and CO2 driving force
for efficient oil production. Similar to other optimal petroleum exploi­
tation problems (Tavallali et al., 2016) such as optimal well placement,
drilling planning (Tavallali et al., 2013, 2018), and production and/or
injection throughput optimization (Tavallali et al., 2014), the combined
CCS-EOR optimization study is indeed a challenging task; to be fair,
maybe one of the most complex ones. This problem is inherently
extremely nonlinear (due to the conservation and constitutive equations
involved), with many known and unknown intertwined interactions
between the many players in the problem (including the injected gas,
reservoir formation, wells and their patterns). Therefore, this problem is
mathematically nonconvex and finding the best solution is not a simple
task at all. Finally, the huge simulation expenses due to the curse of
dimensionality in such problems should not be forgotten (Tavallali et al.,
2018). Given this situation, even attaining a sub-optimal solution that
can outperform the expert solution seems to be useful for the related
industries.
Apart from the experimental and simulation analysis studies on
combined CCS-EOR (Farajzadeh et al., 2020; Rezk et al., 2019; Alfi and
Hosseini, 2016; Han et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019; Momeni et al., 2012;
Jia et al., 2018), optimization studies have also emerged. One should
notice that the target of optimization is basically different from exper­
imental and simulation studies, and the concept of degree of freedom
clearly supports that. Based on the optimization techniques used (and
probably the level of decision making), these optimization studies can be
roughly categorized into two groups: those within mathematical pro­
gramming domain and the ones with simulation-based black box
approach. There are fewer contributions with the first approach. For
instance, Tapia et al. (2015) developed a mixed integer linear program
(MILP) using the analogy of the strip packing problem and studied the
optimal CO2 allocation and scheduling in EOR operations with another
MILP model. Also, Tapia et al. (2016) developed a discrete-time opti­
mization approach to consider both economic discounting and reservoir
depletion. Such linear or linearization approaches are effective for top
level decision making and are usually not that suitable for scheduling
day-to-day operations. In contrast, there are more contributions with the
second (black box) doctrine; mainly due to the versatility of using sim­
ulators (Safarzadeh and Motahhari, 2014). In such studies, many oper­
ational variables (usually linked with economic analysis) such as
injection patterns, rates, paths, supply limits, bottom hole pressure, gas
oil ratio (GOR), and CO2 leakage are of concern. Hence, they can be used
for scheduling purposes (at least theoretically in the long term problems),
of course with significant computational expenses. The majority of these
studies used proxy models (for instance response-surface method, design
expert, regression and artificial neural network (ANN) which are useful
for reservoir characterization, history matching and uncertainty quan­
tification to select the most determining variables for the oil production
and CO2 storage, and also reduce the number of control variables. To be
specific, Chen and Pawar (2019) employed a machine learning tech­
nique to prepare empirical models (which can bypass the full scale
simulation requirement) and used it with Stochastic Simplex Approxi­
mate Gradient algorithm to investigate the effects of injection patterns,
rates, and well spacing on the CO2 sequestration and oil production. In
another study, Dudek et al. (2020) combined the compositional simu­
lator with genetic algorithm to optimize well controls and inflow control
variables (ICV). In addition, Goodarzi et al. (2015) used a numerical
method and an optimization algorithm to maximize the storage capacity
by considering the thermal effect. You et al. (2020) also combined a
compositional numerical simulator with ANN and multi-objective
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
optimizer. Similarly, Ampomah et al. (2017a,2017b) used a composi­
tional reservoir model and ANN optimization process and considered the
geological uncertainty in the Farnsworth Unit oil field. They investi­
gated the effects of bottom hole injection pressure, injection and pro­
duction rates, and gas-oil ratio on the objective function. Le Van and
Chon (2017) used a 3D reservoir model and ANN optimization process to
optimize the injection designs. In addition, Li et al. (2016) applied
D-optimal algorithm of design-expert to investigate the role of injection
models. Moreover, Dai et al. (2016) used a response-surface based
economic model in another study. The same approach of using response
surfaces (in the intermediate steps) can be seen in the work of Wang
et al. (2018) where CO2 injection path was the target of optimization.
Additionally, Guo et al. (2020) used an economic model to optimize the
CO2 capture/injection path. Using multi-period approach (instead of
continuous time domain) as well as parallel computing are the other
strategies to reduce the simulation burden and are reported in the works
of Kwak and Kim (2017) and Min et al. (2018).
As can be seen, mathematical programming based studies provide
handy tools for general decisions, however they lack the required and
detailed scheduling information. Moreover, the black box approaches
have mainly focused on proxies to overcome the problem of high
dimensionality; this is a practical approach; however, this approach also
eliminates some of the information and stays on the general level. To the
best knowledge of the authors and based on the previous discussions,
none of the above optimization studies have used the invaluable infor­
mation of CO2 breakthrough event to address the challenge of high
dimensionality. This can be a promising tool in achieving a practical
solution to support the management team with the required operational
settings; and that is done in the current research. Of course, due to the
nature of this complicated problem, even a near optimal solution seems
to be an invaluable solution for industry.
Therefore, in the current study, CO2 breakthrough (Yuncong et al.,
2014; Khan et al., 2013) event is used as the prime tool to reduce the
total optimization time for the combined CCS-EOR process in one of the
Iranian carbonate oil reservoirs during miscible CO2 injection. This is
addressed with a compositional simulator linked with a black box
approach and/with gradient free/heuristic algorithms. Finally, one of
the prime factors on the CCS-EOR projects is the attitude of the man­
agement team towards giving priority to CCS or EOR. Therefore, to study
the effect of that, a sensitivity analysis is performed in the current study
and its results can be used to develop the corresponding work flow.
2. Methodology
2.1. Problem definition
Using the smart well technology, the oil field can be simultaneously
defined under EOR and CO2 storage operations. Hence, this process for a
fixed long time frame (0 ≤ t ≤ T) in petroleum field should be opti­
mized. Here, the problem can be summarized as follows:
Given:
• A complete list of petro-physical data for both the fluids and reser­
voir as well as the initial state of the reservoir.
• The structure, position, geometry and role (it means injection or
production) of each well.
• The geometry and topology of the reservoir.
Assumptions:
• The pressure drop caused by the skin around the well is neglected.
• The injection gas is pure CO2.
• Dissolved CO2 may exist in the produced oil.
• Sufficient amount of CO2 is (gathered from the nearby industry and)
supplied to the injection point. Maximum oil production and CO2
S.B. Kashkooli et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

injection rates are limited by the capacity of the surface facilities.

Rfu = fl − fv (2)
Both limits are given.
The reservoir simulators ensure that Rfu and Rfl are as close as
Policies: possible to zero (Systems, 2010). This is conducted after spatiotempo­
rally discretizing Equations (1) and (2).
• Both miscible and immiscible injections are possible. In addition to Equations (1) and (2), the following equations are also
• The producer well is shut-in in case of violating the upper limits on defined. In these equations, the bottom-hole pressure (BHPtn ) of the wells
the specific water-cut, gas-oil ratio or the lower limits on the oil are defined as control variables, therefore, the following bounds are
production rate. defined for each well:
• The comparative tendency of the management team towards EOR or
CO2 sequestration is clear and quantifiable. BHPtn ≤ BHPU,t
n n ∈ injectors (3)

Determine: BHPtn ≥ BHPL,t

n n ∈ producers (4)

• Bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and/or flow rate vs. time profiles for where n shows perforated cell (well), t is the index used for time, and U
each well. and L superscripts show upper and lower bounds, respectively. Addi­
tionally, bounds for gas injection and oil production flow rates (Qtn ) are
Targeting to simultaneously maximize the overall oil production and also imposed as:
CO2 storage in the aforementioned project. Qtn ≤ QU,t n ∈ injectors ∪ producers (5)
n

In this study, time invariant upper and lower bounds on the above
2.2. Model description
flow equation are used; however, time dependent values could be
replaced at the cost of increased solution time. Constraints (3–5) are
The reservoir dynamics is represented by a set of partial differential
defined by considering the pros and cons of economic and technical
equations. They are described in many standard references (Ertekin
limitations. For instance, they impose bounds based on the limitations of
et al., 2001; Rios et al., 2018; Aziz, 1979). In a concise form, that can be
the wellhead facilities and/or prevent the damage to both underground
represented as follows (Systems, 2010):
formation and surface facilities. The cumulative oil production (Np ) and
dM cumulative volume of stored CO2 (vCCS ) are important indicators for
Rfl = +F+Q (1)
dt evaluation of the project performance:
∑∑
where, Rfl is a nonlinear residual defined for each fluid, M is the mass per Np = Qtn n ∈ producers (6)
unit surface density at time t, F is the net flow rate into the adjacent cells, n t

and finally Q is the net flow rate into the wells. Since compositional case ( )
∑ ∑ ∑
is at the focus, minimum Gibbs energy of the system should also be vCCS = QtCO2 ,n − QtCO2 ,n′ (7)
imposed, hence the equality of fugacity conditions (fl = fv ) becomes a t n∈injectors ′
n ∈producers
complementary equation for two hydrocarbon phases as below:
The last summation includes the CO2 amount in both gas and oil
phases.
Finally, the following objective function is defined to couple both
purposes of EOR and CO2 storage:
( )
Np vCCS
maxf = w1 + w2 × 100 (8)
OOIP MCCS

where OOIP is the original oil in place, MCCS is the estimated total CO2
injection into the reservoir, and finally w1 and w2 (0 ≤ w1 , w2 ≤ 1) are
weights determined based on the tendency of the management team
towards EOR or CO2 storage. For easier discussion, let us refer to the first
and second fractions in Equation (8) as FOE (field oil production effi­
ciency) and GSE (gas storage efficiency) respectively. Equations (1)–(8)
form our model. Hereafter, we refer it as model EC representing the
EOR-CCS problem.
Solution Strategy: The aforementioned optimization model EC is a
typical nonlinear, nonconvex, non-smooth, dynamic partial differential
equation (PDE) constrained problem. Therefore, in order to solve it
efficiently, its solution strategy can be implemented into two sets of
successive stages: forecasting the production and accordingly updating
the BHPs. A compositional commercial numerical flow simulator
(ECLIPSE 300, version 2018) is used for the former and a serial opti­
mization algorithm employed for the latter. Heuristics and gradient free
search algorithms are arguably the best candidate for such nonlinear and
non-smooth problems. The nonlinear nature of this problem renders that
as a non-convex problem. Therefore, a serial combination of genetic
algorithm (GA) and pattern search (PS) algorithm were used to avoid
trapping in local minima. The former method is implemented using ga
keyword in MATLAB and the latter via patternsearch with default
settings.
Fig. 1. Schematics of solution approach.

3
S.B. Kashkooli et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

Table 2
Composition of the reservoir fluid.
Components Composition %

N2 0.13
CO2 0
H2 S 1.65
CH4 41.15
C2 H6 9.06
C3 H8 6.53
C4 H10 4.75
C5 H12 3.55

Fig. 2. Top view of the OOIP, the reservoir geometry and the location of C6 H14 3.02
the wells. C7 H16 3.20
C8 8.86
C11+ 18.10
Table 1
Initial reservoir conditions and rock and fluid properties.
Property Value Property Value

Initial reservoir pressure 4249 Psi Formation 250 ft

thickness
Bubble point pressure 2402 Psi Water-oil contact 8005 ft
Reservoir temperature 210 ℉ Formation water 237,000 ppm
salinity
Oil viscosity (reservoir 1.1 cP w 1 , w2 0.5
conditions)
Formation water viscosity 0.66 cP BHPU,t
n∈injectors
9000 psi
Average porosity 13 % BHPL,t 800 psi
n∈producers
Average permeability 4.1 mD QU,t
n∈injectors
4000 MSCF/
Day
Max water cut 93 % QU,t 5000 STB/
n∈producers
Day
Max GOR 3.5 MSCF/ QL,t
n∈producers
200 STB/Day
bbl

GA which is a population based method (Tavallali et al., 2018), ex­

plores a wide range of feasible region of solutions without strong Fig. 3. The water-oil relative permeability and the capillary pressure.
dependence on the initial guess. Once GA is terminated, PS (Edgar et al.,
2001) is initiated with the best GA final solution and it can effectively
search local and fine zones. PS uses a template around each solution
point to evaluate the objective function in its neighborhood. Then the
template is transferred to the neighboring solution with the best current
objective function. The same approach is iterated until the size of the
neighborhood region becomes less than a default tolerance value. The
reader can refer to Edgar et al. (2001) for more information about the
details of these widely used optimization algorithms.
Implementation: To solve this problem the entire time horizon is
discretized into τ periods and for each period the appropriate bounds on
the BHP are determined by the optimizer. Flow rate bounds could also
be determined; yet due to the curse of dimensionality only BHP is used in
this study. These bounds are then transferred to the reservoir simulator
to set the BHP and solve Equations (1) and (2). This is notable that due to
the programming nature of this simulator, the software attempts to push
Fig. 4. The gas-oil relative permeability and the capillary pressure.
the BHPs to their given bounds. At any point in time that the software
fails on that, it changes the control from BHP to flow rate (or vice versa
readers can refer to the study of (Tavallali et al., 2018), for more in­
depending on the initial user’s choice). Therefore, the simulator can
formation on the programming details of such simulator-optimizer
provide a time dependent BHP profile based on the bounds provided by
linking approach.
the optimizer.
The details of this successive approach are revealed in Fig. 1. Here,
3. Case study
the script-based nature of ECLIPSE is utilized to facilitate the data
transfer to and from the optimizer in the MATLAB software. Basically,
To test EC model and the aforementioned solution strategy, both are
MATLAB is used to write the BHP values set by GA or PS into ECLIPSE
implemented on a real 3- dimensional and 3-phase heterogeneous car­
keywords for controlling the well operations in script files and feeding to
bonate oil reservoir with 32 × 28 × 12 anisotropic grid blocks with in
ECLIPSE. Then, system keyword in MATLAB, executes these ECLIPSE
homogeneous sizes. This reservoir is located in the south of Iran, and it is
files and their rsm output files are interpreted into objective values.
under CO2 injection (the required data has been obtained from the South
These values are then automatically judged and used by PS and/or GA to
Zagros Oil and Gas Production Company (one of the subsidiaries of
either prepare the next set of BHPs or terminate the iterations. Interested

4
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
Fig. 5. (a) The kx histogram of the entire reservoir and (b) the top view of kx in the first layer.
Iranian central oil fields company)). Three producing (P1–P3) and two
injection (I1–I2) wells exist in this reservoir (Fig. 2) and their perforation
spans the entire reservoir depth. Fig. 2 shows the 5-spot pattern which
are considered for optimizing both CO2 sequestration and EOR pro­
cesses. The production is modeled via a compositional simulator. The
initial conditions and reservoir model parameters are provided in
Table 1 and the composition of the reservoir fluid is given in Table 2. The
water-oil and gas-oil relative permeabilities, as well as the relevant
capillary pressures of the reservoir rock, are reported by Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4, respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the reservoir rock has an
intermediate wettability. That is, the location of the junction of the
relative permeability diagrams for water and oil is about 0.5. Moreover,
the histogram of the x-permeability and porosity field are reported in
Fig. 5a and Fig. 6a, respectively, and Figs. 5b and 6b show their top view
in the first layer. As can be seen from Figs. 5 and 6, the maximum fre­
quency of permeability and porosity are almost 3.75 md and 0.15,
respectively. Moreover, the region between P1, P2 and I1 is a highly
permeable and porous zone. The EOR and CO2 storage in the above­
mentioned reservoir is to be planned for a 20 years’ time frame by
providing the BHP (and subsequently) flow rate profiles. For a fair
comparison, a base scenario is defined and its objective value is
compared with those of the optimized scenarios. The objective function
is consisted of two separate EOR and CO2 storage terms, and in some
cases, they require contradicting operational decisions; therefore,
defining a robust base scenario is not a simple task. The general sense is
that, the lower/higher BHP for producers/injectors can lead to higher
production. Therefore, this idea is used for defining the base scenario.
Additionally, since the attitude of the management team affects the
final solution through the numerical weights of w1 and w2 , a concise
sensitivity analysis on these parameters are performed. In what follows,
the results for w1 = w2 = 0.5 are presented, unless otherwise stated.
5
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
4. Results and discussion
Initial screening: Fig. 7 reveals the field gas oil ratio (FGOR) as well
as the CO2 fraction in the produced gas and liquid of the base scenario.
As can be seen, the CO2 breakthrough occurs on the 2192nd production
day (tbCO2 ). Obviously, the produced gas is only hydrocarbon before this
date. Since initially it is assumed that the management team is neutral to
prioritizing the EOR or CO2 storage (w1 = w2 = 0.5), this breakthrough
is a pivotal event. Before the gas breakthrough ( t < tbCO2 ), the back­
ground settings of the reservoir simulator enforces the upper limit on the
oil production; and to support this, the upper limit on the gas injection
also remains active. During this period, CO2 storage efficiency is 100 %
since breakthrough has not yet happened, and simultaneously oil pro­
duction is (locally) maximized. This means that even without using
external optimizer, the internal reservoir simulator has acted ideally.
This fact helped to narrow down the optimization time window from 0 ≤
t ≤ T to tbCO2 ≤ t ≤ T. To do so, the results of the initial simulation for
0 ≤ t ≤ tbCO2 is stored and used as the initial settings of the rest of sim­
ulations. Since this restart feature of the reservoir simulator is employed,
the objective function could be calculated for the entire time (0 ≤ t ≤ T)
without repeatedly simulating 0 ≤ t ≤ tbCO2 for each simulator call back.
More description is useful to provide more accurate insight to the
effect of the above action. In the initial study, a simpler case with 3
producers and 1 injector (instead of 2 injectors) was introduced to the
optimization workflow. It took 5.1 × 105 (s), 4.3 × 104 (s) and 4.9 × 104
(s) in order for the GA, PS and GA + PS to terminate the search. Despite
this long simulation time for a simpler case the obtained results are not
satisfactory. Obviously, simulation time for a more difficult case would
be even higher. However, after shifting the optimization time to tbCO2 ≤
t ≤ T and implementing the restart feature for a more difficult case with
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
Fig. 6. (a) The porosity histogram of the entire reservoir and (b) the top view of porosity in the first layer.
3 producers and 2 injectors (instead of 1 injector), the final solutions
seems to be satisfactory. As can be seen in Table 3, the simulation time
has decreased by 39 % for the GA, 69.7 % for the PS, and 67.3 % for the
GA + PS. The GA is a heuristic method, and usually 50 individuals (each
set of values for input variables is an individual) are generated in each
population by MATLAB and that means 50 simulations should happen to
find the best individuals before starting the next round. Creating new
populations requires even more simulation. However, the grid search
algorithm can rely on almost 4 new simulations in each iteration. Hence,
it seems natural to see the simulation time as GA > GA + PS > PS, and
the same was observed here.
Finally, one should notice that curse of dimensionality limits the
definition of BHP for each small time steps. Therefore, in this study, we
decided to take a more realistic approach from computational point of
view and define the bounds on BHPs from the very beginning of pro­
duction life. It is clear that the shorter the time frame, the more effective
the bound settings.
To validate the results, firstly, history matching is performed on the
dynamic model and after that all scenarios are considered. This action
ensures us that the model parameters are correct. Secondly, as previ­
ously mentioned, no external optimizer is used before breakthrough.
However, due to internal settings of ECLIPSE, obtaining the maximum
oil production is the first target. In order to increase the reservoir
pressure, maximum gas is injected while no CO2 is produced, hence both
FOE and GSE are at their maximum values. If another objective function
is used, there could be some doubt in the (local) optimality. With the
current simulator settings and the current objective function, this seems
logical to state that (local or near local) optimum is reached.
6
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
Comparison: The objective values for the various scenarios with
different combinations of the optimizer and the sources of initial guesses
are reported in Table 3. As can be seen, the GA has successfully increased
the objective value for 2.86 %. Moreover, by shifting the simulation time
to the breakthrough event, the simulation time could be reduced by
39.2% (the GA) and 67.3 % (the PS). In this optimized case the BHPs of
P1 to P3 and I2 are in order of 800, 800, 3052 and 8149 psi, and I1 is
closed, whereas the BHPs of P1, P2, I1 and I2 in the base case were 800,
800, 9000 and 9000 psi, respectively and P3 was closed. Analyzing the
data in Table 3 is very informative. The GA has compromised on FOE
ratio (reduced from 0.310 to 0.238); however, it could increase the GSE
from 0.870 (of the base) to 0.975. This can be further explained once the
dynamics of the reservoir is analyzed using Fig. 8 to Fig. 14. Note that
the dynamics of the reservoir fluids depends on both the well through­
puts and the topological and geological structure of the reservoir. All
these factors should be checked before comprehending an optimal or
near optimal solution. Higher FOE is due to higher production, which is
in turn achieved once the reservoir pressure is increased by increased
injection. This consequently yields a highly distributed CO2 front in the
reservoir which has moved towards the producers. If not controlled
properly, it can cause high CO2 production, and waste all the measures
taken for storing CO2 gas. This happened in the base case and the same is
prevented in the optimized scenario. In contrast to the base scenario
(where P3 was shut-in about the 5900th day due to violating the GOR
limit, 3.5 MSCF/bbl), I1 is closed from the very beginning in the opti­
mized scenario. As shown in Figs. 5b and 6b the area enclosed between
P1, P2 and I1 is a highly permeable and porous region. Therefore, it is
obvious that fully active injection by I1 in this region could facilitate the
S.B. Kashkooli et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

Fig. 7. The analysis of the base scenario: (a) Field gas oil ratio, and CO2 gas fraction in (b) produced gas and (c) produced liquid.

Table 3
The objective values (w1 = w2 = 0.5).
Optimizer Initial guess source Elapsed time (s) FOE GSE GSE improvements Objective value Objective value improvements

None (Base) – 49.4 0.310 0.870 – 58.995 –

PS Base 1.3 × 104 0.276 0.915 5.2 % 59.540 0.93 %
GA – 3.1 × 105 0.238 0.975 12.1 % 60.680 2.86 %
PS GA 1.6 × 104 0.238 0.975 12.1 % 60.680 2.86 %

advance of CO2 front towards P1 and P2. Since breakthrough had
already happened, this phenomenon could lead to even more rapid in­
crease of CO2 production, without fully utilizing the sequestration ca­
pacity (obviously reducing the GSE). This is exactly what has happened
in the base case with GSE of 0.87 (with 58.4 BSCF injection, 50.81 BSCF
stored and 7.59 BSCF produced, Fig. 10). Of course, one should not
forget the positive side of high CO2 injection on increasing the reservoir
pressure and enhancing the oil production (FOE of 0.310). However,
even this had led to water production increase. In contrast, in the opti­
mized case, another approach has prevailed. I1 is closed from the very
beginning and the injection load is transferred to I2 in the region with
much lower permeability. This obviously delays the increase of CO2

7
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
Fig. 8. CO2 distribution in the reservoir at the end of production window for the (a) base and (b) optimized scenarios.
Fig. 9. CO2 throughput for both injection and production.
Fig. 10. Cumulative CO2 injection and production.
production and provides more contact time in the reservoir. Moreover,
the BHP of P3 is increased in this case. The former action reduces the
reservoir pressure, whereas the latter one saves the same (Fig. 11), and
8
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
Fig. 11. The average field reservoir pressure.
also prevents the CO2 rich region penetrating the producer zones
(Fig. 8). This approach appears effective in increasing GSE and achieved
a final value of 0.975 (with 38.00 BSCF injection, 37.06 BSCF stored and
0.93 BSCF produced, Fig. 10). Of course, the price for this, is the lower
FOE 0.238.
In the base scenario, P3 was closed around 5971th production day,
then, I1 and I2 continuously injected with constant flow rate. Therefore,
the reservoir pressure started to increase. However, in the optimal sce­
nario, I1 is closed and then the reservoir pressure accordingly decreased
compared to the base scenario. Examining Figs. 8 and 9 proves that
although less CO2 volume is stored in the optimized scenario, less CO2
volume is also injected and produced (Fig. 10); and it yields higher GSE.
In fact, the data revealed in Fig. 12 confirm that this optimization is
reduced the CO2 fraction in both produced gas and liquid. The CO2
capillary trapping could prevent the formation of CO2 rich zones in the
vicinity of the producer wells and creates a more uniform distribution of
CO2 in the reservoir. In addition, the gas phase continuity decreases and
also the availability of CO2 reduces in the vicinity of the producer wells.
However, it affects the CO2 mobility (reduces the CO2 fraction in pro­
ducing free gas) and the oil swelling (reduce the CO2 mass transfer to
oil). Therefore, the suggested optimization approach helps to store more
CO2 in the reservoir, and the GSE is increased. Additionally, as can be
seen from Fig. 13 the water production rate has also declined in the
optimized case. These results strongly show that the idea of “the more
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
Fig. 12. CO2 fraction in the (a) produced gas and (b) produced liquid.
Fig. 13. Field water production rate.
Fig. 14. Minimum miscibility pressure measurements based on the vanishing
interfacial tension technique, MMP = 3985 psia.
9
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
Fig. 15. The effect of different values of w1 = 0.3, 0.5, ​ and ​ 0.7 on FOE, GSE,
and objective function, Sensitivity analysis.
injection, the better” should be modified by the management team.
Hence, depending on the objective of the project (for instance increasing
FOE, GSE, profit or all) the appropriate injection plan may differ, and
therefore the idea of the higher injection, the better should be revisited
based on the objective defined. The variations in the profile of produced
CO2 in the base case (Fig. 9) are due to the shut-in of P3 based on the
GOR level violation. The effect of this shut-in can be seen in other figures
too (Fig. 11).
Finally, it is useful to mention that since the average reservoir
pressure has remained higher than the bubble point pressure (Table 1
and Fig. 11); the reservoir has remained at the under-saturated condi­
tion. Also, the equilibrium interfacial tensions (IFT) between the oil and
pure CO2 are measured at 210 ◦ F and pressures varied from 1500 to
4000 psia. As it is reported in Fig. 14, the IFT between pure CO2 and oil is
37 and 11 dyne/cm for 2500 and 3500 psia respectively at reservoir
temperature. However, from Fig. 14, the MMP of the oil and pure CO2 is
calculated by vanishing interfacial tension (VIT) method based on the
IFT data (Azizkhani and Gandomkar, 2019). The MMP is 3985 psia at
reservoir conditions. Consequently, the increase of GOR is due to the
injected CO2 and not the free gas production.
Sensitivity analysis for w1 &w2 : The comparative values of FOE,
GSE and the objective value (f/100) are shown in Fig. 15. These results
are obtained by initiating the pattern search algorithm by the previous
base scenario. As can be seen from this figure, w1 value directly/
inversely affects the FOE/GSE; however, the same figure reveals that
GSE has more dominant effect on the final objective value. In another
words, in such under-saturated reservoir, with miscible CO2 flooding
where the gas breakthrough will happen sometime later in the produc­
tion cycle of the reservoir, the integral management of gas injection, gas
production and consequently gas storage have a prime role in the effi­
cient lifetime management of the system; and this is not separate from
the oil production planning. To clarify that, details of Equation (8)
should be reviewed. Firstly, since w1 + w2 = 1, hence once w1 is
increased its effect is to favor more oil production and that yields
increased FOE. Simultaneously w2 decreases and that inhibits the GSE
increase.
Secondly, the dominancy of GSE can be due the numerical order of
Np
OOIP compared to MvCCS
CCS
. An interpretation in this case study can be that the
amount of unexploited petroleum is indeed substantial. One should
notice that, the optimization solution is a strong function of the selected
objective function, and the solution for one objective function cannot be
interpreted for another. This intertwined feature highlights the impor­
tant and irreversible role of process optimization in this problem and
calls for more in-depth interdisciplinary studies. Surely active collabo­
ration of researchers from process system engineering background with
petroleum engineers can significantly provide new opportunities. This
trend has already started and is gaining more and more attractions (Khor
S.B. Kashkooli et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

et al., 2017; Tavallali et al., 2016).
5. Conclusions
The enhanced oil recovery and CO2 storage are both complex pro­
cesses which are intrinsically nonlinear, non-convex and come with
curse of dimensionality. This situation creates a dilemma for using
gradient free and heuristic methods. In this study, a weighed combined
objective function was defined to simultaneously consider both pro­
cesses. It was shown that once the optimization is used with an under­
standing of the process, this problem can be alleviated to some good
extend. To be specific, since a commercial reservoir simulator was used
here, it was shown that in an under-saturated oil reservoir with CO2
flooding, the main benefit of optimization appears after the CO2
breakthrough. Before this event, all injected CO2 is stored (100 % stor­
age efficiency) and also the heuristics defined for the simulator enforce
maximum oil production. Hence this part can be left to the simulator
itself, which reduces the overall run time. The complementary optimi­
zation can start just after CO2 breakthrough. We also conclude the
following results from this study:
1) After shifting the optimization time to tbCO2 ≤ t ≤ T and imple­
menting the restart feature for a more difficult case, the final
solutions were satisfactory and the simulation time has decreased
by 39 % for GA, 69.7 % for PS, and 67.3 % for GA + PS.
2) The GA has successfully increased the objective value to 2.86 %.
3) The optimization increased the GSE and also, controlled the CO2
injection level.
4) The optimization reduced the CO2 fraction in both produced gas
and liquid.
5) The water production rate has also declined in the optimized
case.
6) This approach could prevent the formation of CO2 rich zones in
the vicinity of the producer wells and create a more uniform
distribution of CO2 in the reservoir.
7) The results from this study indicate that the idea of “the more
injection, the better” should be redefined by the management
team.
8) w1 value directly/inversely affects the FOE/GSE.
9) The GSE has more dominant effect on the final objective function
value. In another words, in such under-saturated reservoir, with
miscible CO2 flooding, where the gas breakthrough will happen
sometime later in the production life of the reservoir, the integral
management of gas injection, gas production and consequently
gas storage have a prime role in the efficient lifetime manage­
ment of the system.
10) When the management team is more interested in EOR and in­
creases its weight factor, it enhances the FOE; however, it de­
teriorates the GSE and the objective function.
Credit author statement
Shahrokh Bahrami Kashkooli: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.
Asghar Gandomkar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Masoud
Riazi: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. M. Sadegh Tavallali: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation for the support
received from the South Zagros Oil and Gas Production Company (one of
the subsidiaries of Iranian central oil fields company) for kindly
providing the reservoir data.

Nomenclature

EOR Enhanced oil recovery

MMP Minimum miscibility pressure
ICV Inflow control variable
IFT Interfacial tension
VIT Vanishing interfacial tension
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CCS-EOR Carbon capture and storage-enhanced oil recovery
CO2-EOR CO2 enhanced oil recovery
GOR Gas oil ratio
FGOR Field gas oil ratio
FWPR Field water production rate
FPR Field average pressure
BSCF Billion standard cubic feet
OOIP Original oil in place
EYMF Field CO2 mole fraction in the produced gas
FXMF Field CO2 mole fraction in the produced liquid
FOE Field oil production efficiency
GSE Gas storage efficiency
GA Genetic algorithm
PS Pattern search algorithm
ANN Artificial neural network
MILP Mixed integer linear program
PDE Partial differential equation

10
S.B. Kashkooli et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257

vCCS Cumulative volume of stored CO2

Np Cumulative oil production
MCCS Estimated total CO2 injection into the reservoir
T Production time
t time
P Producer wells
I Injector wells
kro Oil relative permeability
krg Gas relative permeability
krw Water relative permeability
pc Capillary pressure
kx Absolute permeability in x direction
ϕ Porosity
Rfl The nonlinear residual defined for each fluid
M The mass per unit surface density
F The net flow rate into the adjacent cell
Q Flow rate
w1 &w2 Weights of FOE and GSE respectively
f Objective function
fl Liquid fugacity
fv Gas fugacity
QU,t
n∈injectors Injection flow rate (upper bound)

QU,t
n∈producers Production flow rate (upper bound)

QL,t
n∈producers Production flow rate (lower bound)
tbCO2 CO2 breakthrough time
BHPtn Bottom hole pressure
BHPU,tn Upper bound of bottom hole pressure of injector wells
BHPL,tn Lower bound of bottom hole pressure of producer wells

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109257.

References Dai, Zhenxue, Viswanathan, Hari, Xiao, Ting, Middleton, Richard, Pan, Feng,
Ampomah, William, Yang, Changbing, Zhou, Youqin, Jia, Wei, Lee, Si-Yong, 2017.
CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery at depleted oil/gas reservoirs. Energy
Alfi, Masoud, Hosseini, Seyyed A., 2016. ’Integration of reservoir simulation, history
Procedia 114, 6957–6967.
matching, and 4D seismic for CO2-EOR and storage at Cranfield, Mississippi, USA.
Dudek, J., Janiga, D., Wojnarowski, P., 2020. ’Optimization of CO2-EOR process
Fuel 175, 116–128.
management in polish mature reservoirs using smart well technology. J. Petrol. Sci.
Allinson, Ken, Burt, Dan, Campbell, Lisa, Constable, Lisa, Crombie, Mark, Lee, Arthur,
Eng. 108060.
Lima, Vinicius, Lloyd, Tim, Lee, Solsbey, 2017. ’Best practice for transitioning from
Edgar, Thomas F., Himmelblau, David M., Lasdon, Leon S., 2001. Optimization of
carbon dioxide (CO2) enhanced oil recovery EOR to CO2 storage. Energy Procedia
Chemical Processes.
114, 6950–6956.
Ertekin, Turgay, Abou-Kassem, Jamal H., King, Gregory R., 2001. Basic Applied
Ampomah, W., RS Balch, M Cather, Will, R., Gunda, D., Dai, Z., Soltanian, M.R., 2017a.
Reservoir Simulation.
Optimum design of CO2 storage and oil recovery under geological uncertainty. Appl.
Farajzadeh, R., Eftekhari, Ali Akbar, Dafnomilis, G., Lake, L.W., Bruining, J., 2020. On
Energy 195, 80–92.
the sustainability of CO2 storage through CO2–Enhanced oil recovery. Appl. Energy
Ampomah, William, Balch, Robert, Will, Robert, Cather, Martha, Gunda, Dhiraj,
261, 114467.
Dai, Zhenxue, 2017b. ’Co-optimization of CO2-EOR and storage processes under
Gibbins, Jon, Chalmers, Hannah, 2008. ’Carbon capture and storage. Energy Pol. 36,
geological uncertainty. Energy Procedia 114, 6928–6941.
4317–4322.
Asghari, Koorosh, Al-Dliwe, Adal, 2005. ’Optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration
Goodarzi, S., Settari, A., Zoback, M.D., Keith, D.W., 2015. ’Optimization of a CO2 storage
and improved oil recovery in oil reservoirs. In: Greenhouse Gas Control
project based on thermal, geomechanical and induced fracturing effects. J. Petrol.
Technologies, vol. 7. Elsevier.
Sci. Eng. 134, 49–59.
Aziz, Khalid, 1979. ’Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Applied Science Publishers, p. 476.
Guo, Jian-Xin, Huang, Chen, Wang, Jian-Liang, Meng, Xiao-Yan, 2020. ’Integrated
Azizkhani, Ashkan, Gandomkar, Asghar, 2019. ’A novel method for application of
operation for the planning of CO2 capture path in CCS–EOR project. J. Petrol. Sci.
nanoparticles as direct asphaltene inhibitors during miscible CO2 injection. J. Petrol.
Eng. 186, 106720.
Sci. Eng. 106661.
Han, Jinju, Lee, Minkyu, Lee, Wonsuk, Lee, Youngsoo, Sung, Wonmo, 2016. ’Effect of
Bachu, Stefan, 2003. ’Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of
gravity segregation on CO2 sequestration and oil production during CO2 flooding.
CO 2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environ. Geol. 44, 277–289.
Appl. Energy 161, 85–91.
Barrufet, Maria A., Bacquet, Alexandre, Falcone, Gioia, 2010. ’Analysis of the storage
He, Liping, Shen, Pingping, Liao, Xinwei, Li, Fangfang, Gao, Qichao, Wang, Zhilin, 2016.
capacity for CO2 sequestration of a depleted gas condensate reservoir and a saline
’Potential evaluation of CO2 EOR and sequestration in Yanchang oilfield. J. Energy
aquifer. J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 49, 23–31.
Inst. 89, 215–221.
Budinis, Sara, Krevor, Samuel, Mac Dowell, Niall, Brandon, Nigel, Adam, Hawkes, 2018.
IEA, Energy, and Climate Change, 2015. World Energy Outlook Special Report. 2015.
An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. Energy strategy reviews 22,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International
61–81.
Energy Agency, Paris.
Chen, Bailian, Pawar, Rajesh J., 2019. ’Capacity assessment and co-optimization of CO2
Javaheri, M., Abedi, J., Hassanzadeh, H., 2009. ’Onset of convection in co sequestration
storage and enhanced oil recovery in residual oil zones. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 182,
in deep inclined saline aquifers. J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 48, 22–27.
106342.
Jia, Wei, McPherson, Brian, Pan, Feng, Dai, Zhenxue, Nathan, Moodie, Xiao, Ting, 2018.
Dai, Zhenxue, Viswanathan, Hari, Middleton, Richard, Pan, Feng, Ampomah, William,
Impact of three-phase relative permeability and hysteresis models on forecasts of
Yang, Changbing, Jia, Wei, Xiao, Ting, Lee, Si-Yong, McPherson, Brian, 2016. ’CO2
storage associated with CO2-EOR. Water Resour. Res. 54, 1109–1126.
accounting and risk analysis for CO2 sequestration at enhanced oil recovery sites.
Jiang, Jieyun, Rui, Zhenhua, Hazlett, Randy, Lu, Jun, 2019. An integrated technical-
Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 7546–7554.
economic model for evaluating CO2 enhanced oil recovery development. Appl.
Energy 247, 190–211.

11
S.B. Kashkooli et al.
Khan, Chawarwan, Amin, Robert, Madden, Gary, 2013. ’Carbon dioxide injection for
enhanced gas recovery and storage (reservoir simulation). Egyptian J. Petrol. 22,
225–240.
Khor, Cheng Seong, Ali, Elkamel, Shah, Nilay, 2017. ’Optimization methods for
petroleum fields development and production systems: a review. Optim. Eng. 18,
907–941.
Kim, Youngmin, Jang, Hochang, Kim, Junggyun, Lee, Jeonghwan, 2017. ’Prediction of
storage efficiency on CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers using artificial neural
network. Appl. Energy 185, 916–928.
Kwak, Dong-Hun, Kim, Jin-Kuk, 2017. ’Techno-economic evaluation of CO2 enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) with the optimization of CO2 supply. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
58, 169–184.
Le Gallo, Yann, Couillens, Philippe, Manai, Taoufik, 2002. CO2 sequestration in depleted
oil or gas reservoirs. In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and
Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Le Van, Si, Chon, Bo Hyun, 2017. ’Evaluating the critical performances of a
CO2–Enhanced oil recovery process using artificial neural network models. J. Petrol.
Sci. Eng. 157, 207–222.
Li, Y., Li, J., Ding, S., Zhang, H., 2016. ’Co-optimization of CO2 sequestration and
enhanced oil recovery in extra-low permeability reservoir in Shanbei’, Energy
Sources, Part A: recovery, Utilization. Environ. Effects. 38, 442–449.
Min, Baehyun, Sun, Alexander Y., Wheeler, Mary F., Jeong, Hoonyoung, 2018.
’Utilization of multiobjective optimization for pulse testing dataset from a CO2-EOR/
sequestration field. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 170, 244–266.
Momeni, A., Aghajani, M., Zargar, G., 2012. A Simulation study of carbon dioxide
sequestration in a depleted oil reservoir. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 30, 751–765.
Nilsson, Martin, 2016. ’Organization of the petroleum exporting countries (OPEC). In:
International Organizations and the Rise of ISIL. Routledge.
Rezk, Mohamed Gamal, Foroozesh, Jalal, Zivar, Davood, Mumtaz, Mudassar, 2019. ’CO2
storage potential during CO2 enhanced oil recovery in sandstone reservoirs. J. Nat.
Gas Sci. Eng. 66, 233–243.
Rios, V.S., Santos, L.O.S., Quadros, F.B., Schiozer, D.J., 2018. ’New upscaling technique
for compositional reservoir simulations of miscible gas injection. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
175, 389–406.
Safarzadeh, Mohammad Amin, Motahhari, Seyyed Mahdia, 2014. ’Co-optimization of
carbon dioxide storage and enhanced oil recovery in oil reservoirs using a multi-
objective genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). Petrol. Sci. 11, 460–468.
12
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109257
Systems Schlumberger Information, 2010. Eclipse Technical Description.
Tapia, John FD., Lee, J.-Y., Ooi, Raymond EH., Foo, Dominic CY., Tan, Raymond R.,
2015. ’Design and scheduling of CO2 enhanced oil recovery with geological
sequestration operations as a strip packing problem. Chem. Eng. Trans. 45,
1615–1620.
Tapia, John Frederick D., Lee, Jui-Yuan, Ooi, Raymond EH., Foo, Dominic CY.,
Tan, Raymond R., 2016. Optimal CO2 allocation and scheduling in enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) operations. Appl. Energy 184, 337–345.
Tavallali, M Sadegh, Karimi, I.A., Baxendale, D., 2016. ’Process systems engineering
perspective on the planning and development of oil fields. AIChE J. 62, 2586–2604.
Tavallali, Mohammad Sadegh, Bakhtazma, Farnoosh, Ali, Meymandpour, Karimi, I.A.,
2018. Optimal drilling planning by considering the subsurface dynamics—combing
the flexibilities of modeling and a reservoir simulator. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57,
16367–16378.
Tavallali, M.S., Karimi, I.A., Halim, A., Baxendale, D., Teo, K.M., 2014. ’Well placement,
infrastructure design, facility allocation, and production planning in multireservoir
oil fields with surface facility networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 11033–11049.
Tavallali, M.S., Karimi, I.A., Teo, K.M., Baxendale, D., Ayatollahi, Sh, 2013. Optimal
producer well placement and production planning in an oil reservoir. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 55, 109–125.
Wang, Qian, Yang, Shenglai, Han, Haishui, Wang, Lu, Qian, Kun, Pang, Jieqiong, 2019.
Experimental investigation on the effects of CO2 displacement methods on
petrophysical property changes of ultra-low permeability sandstone reservoirs near
injection wells. Energies 12, 327.
Wang, Xiao, van’t Veld, Klaas, Marcy, Peter, Huzurbazar, Snehalata, Alvarado, Vladimir,
2018. ’Economic co-optimization of oil recovery and CO2 sequestration. Appl.
Energy 222, 132–147.
Wang, Yang, Zhang, Keni, Wu, Nengyou, 2013. ’Numerical investigation of the storage
efficiency factor for CO2 geological sequestration in saline formations. Energy
Procedia 37, 5267–5274.
Yang, Guang, Zhang, Ye, Li, Shuiquan, 2012. Uncertainty analysis of carbon
sequestration in an inclined deep saline aquifer. In: Masters Abstracts International.
You, Junyu, Ampomah, William, Sun, Qian, 2020. ’Development and application of a
machine learning based multi-objective optimization workflow for CO2-EOR
projects. Fuel 264, 116758.
Yuncong, G.A.O., Zhao, Mifu, Wang, Jianbo, Chang, Z.O.N.G., 2014. ’Performance and
gas breakthrough during CO2 immiscible flooding in ultra-low permeability
reservoirs. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 41, 88–95.