The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery
Open accessAbstract
Oil reservoirs are deep underground, with the oil and gas contained in porous rock at high temperatures and pressures. Around 5 – 20%, of the oil can be produced from the field under its own pressure (primary production), but in most fields water is injected to displace the oil. This still leaves at least 50% of the oil behind in the reservoir. Further recovery can be obtained by injecting carbon dioxide that both displaces and dissolves the remaining oil. At least 71 projects worldwide use CO2 flooding and produce a total of over 170 000 barrels of oil a day, worth around $1.3 billion a year. The cost of producing an extra barrel of oil ranges from $5 to $8 and thus is profitable at the present price of nearly $20 a barrel. In the majority of these cases, the carbon dioxide comes from natural underground sources and is piped to the oil field. The potential use of CO2 flooding would be considerably greater, if large quantities of the gas, extracted from power stations, were available at low cost. For every kilogramme of CO2 injected, approximately one to one quarter of a kilogramme of extra oil will be recovered. For most projects about as much carbon dioxide is disposed of in the reservoir as is generated when the oil is burnt. When CO2 is at a sufficiently high pressure to form mixtures with the crude oil that are miscible in laboratory tests, up to 40% of the oil remaining in the field after water flooding can be recovered. Approximately half the water flooded oil fields in the US could be exploited profitably by CO2 injection. Carbon dioxide flooding of the larger North Sea fields is a particularly attractive prospect, because the crude oil is light (composed of low molecular weight hydrocarbons) and the geology of the reservoirs is less heterogeneous than the American fields. A profitable project would be possible if the gas could be provided and piped to the reservoir at a cost of around $3.50 per thousand cubic feet or less.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies
Leung, D. Y. C., Caramanna, G., & Maroto-Valer, M. M. (2014) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093 · Cited by 3,198
Cuéllar-Franca, R. M., & Azapagic, A. (2015) · Journal of CO2 Utilization · doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001 · Cited by 1,571
Bachu, S. (2003) · Environmental Geology · doi:10.1007/s00254-003-0762-9 · Cited by 788
Jarvis, S. M., & Samsatli, S. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.01.007 · Cited by 270
Metadata
- Authors
- Blunt, M., Fayers, F. J., & Orr, F. M.
- Venue
- Energy Conversion and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 9-11
- Pages
- 1197-1204
- ISSN
- 0196-8904 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999646019
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0196-8904(93)90069-m
- The paper
- Blunt, M., Fayers, F. J., & Orr, F. M. (1993). Carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery. Energy Conversion and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(93)90069-m
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.