A Comprehensive Summary of the Application of Machine Learning Techniques for CO2-EOR Projects

Preprint

Review

A Comprehensive Summary of the Application of Machine Learning Techniques for CO₂-EOR Projects

Altmetrics

Downloads

293

Views

134

Comments

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

17 February 2024

Posted:

20 February 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts

Abstract

In recent years, machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as an efficient and effective technology within the petroleum industry. This paper focuses on the current application of ML in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) through CO2 injection, which exhibits promising economic and environmental benefits of climate-change mitigation strategy. Our comprehensive review explores the diverse use cases of ML techniques in CO2-EOR, including aspects such as minimum miscible pressure (MMP) prediction, well location optimization, oil production and recovery factor prediction, multi-objective optimization, Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) properties estimation, Water Alternating Gas (WAG) analysis, and CO2-foam EOR, from 101 reviewed papers. In this comprehensive review, we catalog relative information, including the input parameters, objectives, data sources, train/test/validate information, results, evaluation, and rating score for each area based on criteria such as data quality, ML building process, and analysis of results. We also briefly summarized the benefits and limitations of ML methods in petroleum industry applications. Our detailed and extensive study could serve as an invaluable reference for employing ML techniques in the petroleum industry. Based on the review, we found that ML techniques offer great potential in solving problems in the majority of CO2-EOR areas involving prediction and regression. With the generation of massive amounts of data in the everyday oil and gas industry, machine learning techniques can provide efficient and reliable preliminary results for the industry.

Keywords:

Subject: Engineering - Energy and Fuel Technology

1. Introduction

Petroleum resources have been deemed as the principal source of fossil-fuel-based energy to meet the world’s energy demands since the early 20^th century. The importance of enhancing oil reservoir extraction efficiency has grown due to the restricted supply of reserves. Over two-thirds of the original oil in place (OOIP) remains trapped after primary and secondary recovery processes. Besides, extracting the remaining oil from mature reservoirs in complicated geological formations is more challenging. EOR methods are initiated to recover the remaining oil from reservoirs after both primary and secondary recovery methods are exhausted. Surfactant flooding, chemical flooding, polymer flooding, steam stimulation, microbial flooding, gas injection, and so forth (Green & Willhite, 1998; Yang et al., 2018) are the common EOR approaches. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is very successful since it increases oil production by increasing mobility and reducing oil viscosity and saturation, which works well with both conventional and some unconventional formations. CO₂-EOR is one of the popular techniques, occupying around 20% of 1120 worldwide EOR projects (Figure 1). It may recover 15% to 25% of the OOIP of light or medium oil fields that are close to depletion due to flooding (Yongmao et al., 2004).

The utilization of CO₂ in EOR can significantly improve oil recovery; at the same time, it plays an essential role in environmental preservation. The importance of CO₂-EOR as part of carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS) schemes becomes more vital as the petroleum industry works toward decarbonization to mitigate green house gas emissions. If reinjection is not considered, approximately 60% of injected CO₂ can be trapped in the reservoir at the CO₂ breakthrough (Gozalpour et al., 2005). This approach, efficiently utilizing CO₂ in oil recovery, aligns with an environmentally friendly protocol while simultaneously enhancing resource efficiency and contributing substantially to sustainability goals (Hasan et al., 2015).

Machine learning (ML) approaches have drawn considerable interest as emerging technologies in the oil and gas industry over the past 20 years. Applying the ML approaches to examine issues in the oilfield development process has acquired new life with the advent of intelligent oilfields and big data technology. Indeed, ML shows the feasibility of offering a more straightforward and quicker method than rigorous and numerous simulations or experiments. Many ML correlations have emerged with the development of computer tools, particularly in reservoir characterization, CO₂ storage, production, and drilling operations (Ghoraishy et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2023; Nait Amar & Zeraibi, 2020; You & Lee, 2022).

Many literature reviews have been conducted in the past to summarize the application of ML in the oil and gas industry (Ng et al., 2023). However, no study on global research trends analyzed the dominant input parameters and evaluated the research work on CO₂-EOR projects. The evaluations could help researchers get a preliminary idea about the current research trend on CO₂-EOR and whether their recent research impacts a particular field. Furthermore, few studies have systematically summarized and examined all the literature on ML for CO₂-EOR. Few reviews find the most critical topics, objectives, input parameters, evaluations, and research gaps in ML for CO₂-EOR. This study aims to offer insight into current trends and technological development indicators, which will help identify the viewpoint for the following research areas and prospects. Thus, data extraction analysis was carried out to ascertain the research advancement and trends in ML for CO₂-EOR, whereby a systematic review accomplishes the closure of research gaps on this subject.

This paper aims to summarize and evaluate the various ML models in CO₂-EOR and provide insightful analysis with 101 papers reviewed. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the mechanisms and processes of CO₂-EOR. Section 3 briefs the most popular ML and optimization methods employed in the literature. Section 4 summarizes the work that applied ML in the CO₂-EOR process, including MMP prediction, WAG, well placement optimization, oil production or recovery factor prediction, multiple objectives optimization, PVT properties estimation, and CO₂-foam. Section 5 outlines the benefits and limitations of the application of ML in the CO₂-EOR process before ending this survey paper with concluding remarks.

2. Mechanisms and process of CO₂-EOR

CO₂ is generally injected into the reservoir under the following conditions: (a) miscible injection; (b) immiscible front displacement after water flooding; (c) water alternating gas (WAG) displacement; and (d) CO₂ dissolved in brine flooding, also referred to as carbonated water injection (CWI) (Kumar et al., 2022). Miscible displacement has been successful over the years. It occurs at pressures above a minimum miscible pressure (MMP) of the oil, where the injected gas and the hydrocarbons are entirely miscible and form a single-phase fluid. The main advantages of miscible displacement are that it can promote oil swelling, reduce fluid viscosity, increase mobility, reduce remaining oil saturation, and improve oil production.

CO₂ has been historically favored over other gases due to its low MMP. Furthermore, CO₂ gas injection can potentially mitigate greenhouse gas emissions while improving oil recovery. CO₂ miscible flooding, whether initiated upon first contact or multiple contacts, the remaining oil and CO₂ become miscible, resulting in near zero interfacial tension (IFT), no capillary pressure, and improved volumetric sweep (Ev) and displacement efficiency (Ed) (Satter & Thakur, 1994). Conversely, in the case of CO₂ immiscible flooding, the IFT is not near zero, maintaining the capillary pressure and causing some residual oil saturation. The oil recovery efficacy is contingent upon the efficiency of fluid displacement, volumetric sweep, and CO₂ solubility in the oleic phase, consequently increasing oil mobility. These characteristics are influenced by various factors, including gravity, rock wettability, reservoir heterogeneity, crude oil phase behavior, and phenomena such as viscous fingering, etc. (Yang & Li, 2020; Kumar et al., 2022).

3. Summary of machine learning approaches

Machine learning (ML) involves the development of computational models and algorithms capable of learning patterns and making data-driven predictions or decisions without being explicitly programmed. ML algorithms employ data to automatically identify and generalize patterns, which may be applied for classification, regression, clustering, and more tasks. ML can be categorized into four main types: supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. Figure 2 provides some examples of different ML algorithms. Among these various algorithms, supervised learning is most applied in the oil and gas industry (Ng et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the enhancement of the ML process involves the optimization techniques to determine optimal values for control parameters, including the spreading coefficient, number of neurons, biases, and weights. Several optimization methods, such as the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm, genetic algorithm (GA), and smart nature-inspired swarm algorithms like particle swarm optimization (PSO), grey wolf optimization (GWO), and ant colony optimization (ACO), have demonstrated their efficacy in achieving significant improvements in these tasks. There are two categories in intelligent optimization algorithms: single-objective optimization and multi-objective optimization (Figure 3).

4. Application of ML in CO₂-EOR

4.1. Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP)

In miscible gas injection, MMP is one of the most important parameters to determine the accuracy of miscible CO₂ flooding into the reservoir. Traditionally, MMP is defined as the pressure at which 80% of the OOIP is extracted from the reservoir upon the breakthrough of CO₂ (Holm & Josendal, 1974). Because CO₂ flooding is more expensive than waterflooding, an accurate estimation of MMP can help better design miscible CO₂ flooding, ultimately leading to cost savings. In the literature, researchers have proposed various MMP estimation approaches, including:

a): experimental methods such as slim-tube tests (Yellig & Metcalfe, 1980), rising-bubble apparatus (Christiansen & Haines, 1987), vanishing interfacial tension (Rao & Lee, 2002);
b): empirical correlations (Alston et al., 1985; Orr & Jensen, 1984; Shokir, 2007; Yellig & Metcalfe, 1980) and computational techniques such as single mixing-cell and multiple mixing-cell approaches (Ahmadi & Johns, 2011).

However, though accurate and reliable, experimental methods are time-consuming and expensive. Most empirical correlations and computation techniques do not consider different thermodynamic and reservoir properties. Moreover, they exhibit limitations in accurately estimating the trend of MMP concerning their input parameters (Lv et al., 2023). In contrast, the advent of ML has provided various robust algorithms in problems involving regression/classification. Consequently, considerable research studies dedicated to the precise modeling of MMP and the successful application of ML in this domain have been well-documented.

The earliest application of ML on CO₂-EOR MMP can be traced back to 2003, when Huang et al. first introduced ANN into this field. Subsequently, Emera and Sarma (2005) employed the GA to optimize the MMP prediction processes. Following the year 2010, there has been a gradual increase in the adoption of ML algorithms and optimization techniques, accompanied by a significant expansion of the available dataset. Nowadays, the application of ML in predicting MMP has evolved into a more mature state. A comprehensive survey of the literature review in the field of CO₂-oil MMP estimation applying ML, spanning the period from 2003 to the present, is summarized in Table 1. Each reviewed paper is scrutinized and synthesized with respect to the employed algorithms, dataset size, data splitting methods, input variables, outcomes, our assessment, and a rating score. The rating score is determined through an evaluation encompassing criteria that consider the quality of data, the ML process, and the depth of results analysis.

Figure 5 presents a statistical analysis from 56 research papers. The reveals a remarkable surge in the adoption of ML methodologies within this domain. ANN and GA have emerged as the most favored choices among many ML and optimization algorithms. ANNs, particularly RBFNN and MLP, are prominently employed. We have provided a separate categorization for RBFNN and MLP to afford a more detailed perspective on their individual utilization patterns.

Furthermore, an essential factor impacting the efficacy of ML models in MMP predictions is the size of the dataset. It is widely recognized that an inadequately sized dataset can lead to overfitting, potentially compromising the model's generalizability. A substantial proportion of the examined papers (64%) have datasets with fewer than 200 data points, with a noteworthy subset (21%) relying on datasets with fewer than 100 data points. This stark discrepancy in dataset size necessitates critically examining the quality and robustness of models trained on such limited data. Therefore, it becomes paramount to consider the trade-offs between the advantages of ML applications and the constraints posed by data scarcity in the context of MMP prediction.

As summarized in Table 1, the most dominant parameters affecting pure CO₂ MMP are reservoir temperature, molecular weight of C₅₊ or C₇₊, mole fraction of volatile oil elements, and mole fraction of intermediate oil elements. While for impure CO₂ MMP, additional parameters such as mole fraction of gas, including C₁ to C₄, CO₂, N₂, and H₂S, are also considered. Some studies included volatile oil components (C₁ and N₂) as well.

Figure 4. (a) Rise of ML application papers in MMP prediction; (b) Occurrence of different ML algorithms; (c) Distribution of dataset size.

4.2. Water-alternating-gas (WAG)

WAG injection, a widely adopted method in EOR techniques, cyclically injects water and gas, typically CO₂ or CO₂-hydrocarbon blends, to increase sweep efficiency and maximize oil recovery. Optimizing parameters such as WAG ratio, duration of each cycle, and reservoir properties is pivotal for achieving favorable economic outcomes. The application of ML methods on WAG has been developed more recently. The earliest application of ML in WAG started in 2016, Hosseinzadeh Helaleh & Alizadeh employed SVM together with three optimization methods, ACO, PSO, and GA, to predict fractional oil recovery. In 2018, Nait Amar et al. used time-dependent multi-ANN to predict the total field oil production. Later on, Nait Amar & Zeraibi (2020) successfully applied SVR to construct a dynamic proxy of a field in Algeria, complemented by Genetic Algorithms (GA) for optimizing water-alternating-CO₂ gas parameters. A more detailed summary is listed in Table 2. Figure 5 provides statistical analysis based on 26 papers. Similar to MMP, the most popular ML algorithm is ANN, and the most preferred optimization is GA.

4.3. Well placement optimization (WPO)

WPO plays an essential role in reservoir management and development for many reasons. It can help maximize oil recovery and economic considerations (because drilling and maintaining wells are expensive). However, it has been considered one of the most challenging tasks due to the necessity of evaluating numerous computation scenarios to identify the optimal location for wells and achieve maximum production. The complexity of geological heterogeneities, such as variations in permeability and porosity, the existence of multiple facies, and stratigraphic and structural boundary conditions, requires extensive computational efforts. Besides, small changes in well locations can lead to significant changes in oil recovery prediction, making the optimization more challenging. Numerous simulations for hundreds or thousands of scenarios need to be run to make the best decision.

In recent years, studies suggest the integration of ML approaches has been proposed in the literature as the potential solution. It holds the potential to accelerate computation processes, enabling quicker attainment of accurate scenarios within numerical simulations. Despite the recognized importance of optimizing well placement, the investigations of CO₂ injector locations for optimal oil recovery and storage are relatively infrequent (Table 3). Most research is focused on waterflood injector selection (Xiong & Lee, 2020).

Table 2. Summary for ML applications on WAG.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Hosseinzadeh Helaleh & Alizadeh (2016)	SVM (ACO, GA, PSO)	200	80% train + 20% test	Fractional oil recovery	RL_C, RL_D, N_gAO, N_gGO, M_SWAG, N_C, SGR, N_Pe, N_SCon, N_B, N_α, N_σ, λ*_Dx, N_n, He	ACO has high accuracy and low computational time compared to ANN, GA, and PSO.	Evaluate with both experiments and simulations. Limited to a similar geological model.	Only has SVM model.	8
Le Van & Chon (2017)	ANN	223 (simulation)	45% train + 20% test + 35% validation	Oil recovery factor, oil rate, GOR, accumulative CO₂ production, net CO₂ storage	Swi, kv/kh, WAG ratio, duration of each cycle	ANN models can support numerical simulation of CO₂-EOR projects. WAG ratio less than 1.5 is best.	Evaluated multiple objectives but only limited to ANN.	Only have simulation results as trained data.	8
Van & Chon (2018)	ANN	263 (simulation)	50% train + 20% test + 30% validation	Oil recovery + net CO₂ storage + cumulative gaseous CO₂ production	Kv/Kh, WAG ratio, Sw, well distance between each injector, T	ANN can help estimate oil recovery and CO₂ storage. 25 injection cycle is best.	Evaluate different WAG ratios but limited to ANN models only.	Only have simulation results as trained data.	7
Mohagheghian et al. (2018)	GA, PSO	2000 (simulation)	NA	NPV + incremental recovery factor	Water and gas injection rates, BHP of producers, cycle ratio, cycle time, injected gas composition, total WAG period.	PSO is capable of optimizing WAG variables and projects at field scale.	First used GA in WAG at field scale. Evaluated with three case studies. Limited to specific geological models.	Only GA and PSO are evaluated. Specific to E-segment.	9
Nwachukwu, Jeong, Sun, et al. (2018)	XGBoost, MADS	1000 (simulation)	50% train + 50% test	Oil/water/gas production rates, well locations, NPV	Well x-coordinates, well y-coordinates, water/gas injection rates, well block ϕ/k, well block Swi	The new model combined XGBoost and MADS provided high accuracy.	Demonstrated with a case study in which underlying geology is uncertain. Limited to one model.	Only XGBoost is employed.	8
Nait Amar et al. (2018)	ANN/GA, ACO	85	88% train + 12% test	Field oil production total	Gas/water injection rates, gas/water injection half-cycle, WAG ratio, and slug size.	Both GA and ACO are highly effective in the optimization of the WAG process.	Demonstrated the application of a time-dependent proxy model for the WAG process. Without further application of the case study.	Restricted to specific geological models. Limited simulation runs	8
Belazreg et al. (2019)	Regression, GDMH	4290	70% train + 30% test	Incremental recovery factor	kh, kv, API, gas gravity, water viscosity, solution GOR, WAG ratio, WAG cycle, land coefficient, reservoir pressure, PV of injected water, PV of injected gas.	GMDH performed better in selecting effective input parameters and optimizing the model structure.	Novel approach but didn’t apply real field WAG pilot data to validate.	Limited to two ML methods.	8
Jaber et al. (2019)	CCD	81	NA	Oil recovery	k, ϕ, kv/kh, cyclic length, BHP, WAG ratio, CO₂ slug size	The new proxy model can predict oil recovery. The optimum WAG ratio is 1.5.	Developed a new proxy model based on CCD, But limited to one model.	Limited data points and only from simulation runs.	7
Menad & Noureddine (2019)	MLP (LMA, BR, SCG) + NSGA-II	From 2010 to 2018	NA	FOPR, FWPR	Time, FWIR, FGIR, the value of the needed parameter at the previous time step	MLP-LMA has the highest accuracy and lowest computation time.	Developed a dynamic proxy model for multiple objectives. But limited to one geological model.	The database was generated based on multiple runs of the simulation.	8
Nait Amar & Zeraibi (2020)	SVR, GA	75	NA	Field oil production total	Injection rates of water and gas, half-cycle injection time, WAG ratio, slug size, initialization time of the process	SVR-GA provides high accuracy and reasonable CPU time.	Established a dynamic proxy model based on SVR-GA, but no comparison with other algorithms.	Limited data points and only one model evaluated.	7
Yousef et al. (2020)	ANN	8 years * 37 wells	85% train + 15% test	Oil/gas/water production rate, GOR, infill well location	Well trajectory data, well logs, seismic data, production and injection history, reservoir pressure, choke opening, and WHP history.	Implementing ANNfor top-downmodeling can predictreservoir performanceunder WAG.	Can predict the reservoir performance 3 months ahead. But simplify the data gathering, modeling, and validation process.	Unknown about specific input data. No comparison with other models or field case studies.	6
Belazreg & Mahmood (2020)	GDMH	177	70% train + 30% test	Incremental oil recovery factor	Rock type, WAG process type, reservoir horizontal permeability, API, oil viscosity, reservoir pressure and temperature, and hydrocarbon pore volume of injected gas.	GDMH models can predict three WAG incremental recovery factors: sandstone immiscible gas injection, sandstone miscible gas injection, and carbonate miscible gas injection	Proved GDMH can model the WAG process and has good potential. More data and validation are needed to improve model robustness and applicability.	Limited published WAG pilot data.	8
You et al. (2020)	ANN	820	80% train + 10% test + 10% validation	Oil recovery, CO₂ storage, and project NPV	Water injection time, CO₂ injection time, producer BHP, water injection rate.	The ANN proxy model can help improve the prediction performance.	Could handle two or three objectives very well when a limited number of control parameters	Only suitable for limited input parameters.	8
You et al. (2021)	Gaussian SVR - PSO	217	NA	Hydrocarbon recovery + CO₂ sequestration volume + NPV	FOPR2, gas cycle5, water cycle *5	The proposed method can optimize the WAG process with high accuracy.	Nice sensitivity studies of CO₂ price and oil price on NPV. Limited comparison with other ML models.	Restricted to specific geological models.	8
Enab & Ertekin (2021)	ANN	2000	80% train + 10% test + 10% validation	Production prediction, production schemes design, history matching	25 inputs including reservoir rock characteristics, initial conditions, oil composition, well design parameters, and injection strategy parameters.	ANN provides a faster prediction for fish-bone structure in low permeability reservoirs.	Nice project design and economic analysis, but limited to ANN model only.	Limitations wereimposed by defining the range of each variable.	8
Afzali et al. (2021)	GEP	96	67% train + 33% test	Recovery factor	Oil viscosity, gas/water injection rates, k, PVI, number of cycles	The developed model is successful when compared with experimental results.	Novelty in using GEP. The dataset is from mathematical correlation.	Limited and less supportive dataset.	8
Lv et al. (2021)	ANN-PSO	2100	70% train + 15% test + 15% validation	Oil production	So, Pi, k, ϕ, h, Pwf, water injection rate, water cut before gas flooding, gas injection rate, water injection volume, cycle time, water injection time, production rate, grid size	ANN-PSO provides a good model for parameter optimization of CO₂ WAG-EOR.	Routine procedures, not too much novelty in applying ANN-PSO.	No comparison with other ML models.	7
Nait Amar et al. (2021)	MLP-LM, RBFNN-ACO/GWO	82	88% train + 12% test	Field oil production total	Water/gas injection rates, injection half-cycle, downtime, WAG ratio, gas slug size	MLP-LMA is best. The proxy model can significantly reduce simulation time and conserve high accuracy.	The application of GWO is novel. Limited runs and may have overfitting problems.	Water cut is limited to 50%. Reservoir pressure must be higher than MMP.	8
Junyu et al., (2021)	Gaussian-SVR	1400	NA	Cumulative oil production and cumulative CO₂ storage.	Water/gas cycle, producer BHP, water injection rate, etc. (91 variables in total)	Gaussian-SVR performs best.	Showed the possibility to design a CO₂-WAGproject using as many inputs as possible.	Given the large number of input parameters, the dataset may not be large enough.	7
Sun et al. (2021)	SVR, MLNN, RSM	600	83% train + 17% test	Oil production, CO₂ storage, NPV.	Duration of CO₂ and water injection cycles, water injection rate, production well specifications, oil price, CO₂ price, etc. (62 parameters)	The MLNN model can handle problems with large input and output dimensions.	Compared three different methods. But only suitable for specific geological models.	The average reservoir pressure must be between 3700 – 5400 psi.	8
Huang et al. (2021)	LSTM	5404	90% train + 10% test	Oil production, GOR, water cut	Daily liquid rate, daily oil/gas/water rate, GIR, WIR, reservoir pressure, WHFP, choke size of producers.	The calculation time of LSTM is 864% less than the simulation, while the prediction error of the LSTM method is 261% less than the simulation.	The model is based on real reservoir data over 15 years. But limited to one ML model.	Only one ML model is considered. No comparison with other models.	7
H. Li et al. (2022)	RF	216	70% train + 30% test	Cumulative oil production, CO₂ storage amount, CO₂ storage efficiency	CO₂-WAG period, CO₂ injection rate, water-gas ratio, reservoir properties, oil properties, depth, layer thickness, Soi, well operation	CO₂-WAG cycle time has a slight influence on oil production. Random forest can predict oil production and CO₂ storage.	Proved RF has high computation efficiency and accuracy in CO₂-WAG projects. But no comparison of different ML models.	Small dataset and only one ML model is studied.	7
Andersen et al. (2022)	LSSVM – PSO/GA/GWO/GSA	2500	70% train + 15% test + 15% validation	Oil recovery factor	Water-oil and gas-oil mobility ratios, water-oil and gas-oil gravity numbers, reservoir heterogeneity factor, two hysteresis parameters, and water fraction.	LSSVM with GWO or PSO performed better than GA or GSA.	Very detailed and thorough study. The dataset is relatively large. Some limitations of input parameters.	Several important parameters were not varied much.	9
Singh et al. (2023)	DNN - GA	2200	70/80% train + 30/20% test	Maximize oil recovery	Water injection rates, gas-to-water ratio, slug size.	DNN-GA workflow can identify improved WAG parameters over the baseline recovery, with incremental increases of 0.5-2%.	Presents a novel workflow for WAG optimization using ML. Requires a large number of simulation runs (2200 here) to initially train DNN.	Limited to optimizing WAG parameters.	7
Asante et al. (2023)	LSTM	2345*3	80% train + 20% test	Oil production rate, oil recovery factor	Bottom-hole pressure at injector and producer, water and gas injection volumes, WAG cycle.	LSTM can model complex time-series data without the use of the geological model.	Shows the ability of LSTM to perform time series analysis. But the input parameters are restricted.	Requires large amounts of quality field data.	7
Matthew et al. (2023)	ANN-NSGA-II	68 + 97	NA	Maximize oil produced and CO₂ storage	Water and gas injection rate, half-cycle length, time step.	The developed proxy model can predict both simple and complex models.	Developed a dynamic proxy model for multiple objectives. But the dataset size is limited.	Limited simulation runs. Has a high possibility of overfitting.	7

*: The rating for each paper is from the author’s perspective.

Table 3. Summary of ML applications in well location optimization.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Nwachukwu et al. (2018)	XGBoost	200, 500, 1000	NA	Total profit, cumulative oil/gas produced, net CO₂ stored	Well-to-well pairwise connectivity, injector block k and ϕ, initial injector block saturations	Quick evaluation of well placement using well-to-well connectivity was successful with 1000 simulation runs and R² = 0.92.	No co-optimization of oil recovery and CO₂ storage, only ML proxy usage.	The dataset is from simulation runs. Only suitable for one geological model.	8
Selveindran et al. (2021)	AdaBoost, RF, ANN	3000, 2000, 1000	70% train + 30% test	Incremental oil production	K, ϕ, PV, initial fluid saturation, pressure, time of flight, well-to-well distances, distance to the injector, injection rate, and injection depth.	Stacked learner is better than an individual learner. ML helps rapidly identify the areas that are optimal for injection.	Detailed and comprehensive analysis, including posterior sampling.	Heavily rely on the geological model.	8

*: The rating for each paper is from the authors’ perspective.

4.4. Oil production/recovery factor

The recovery factor, defined as the ratio of produced oil to OOIP, is one of the most crucial success metrics for evaluating all EOR projects, as it determines how much incremental oil or ultimate oil is produced. Accurately predicting the recovery factor is challenging because it depends on diverse factors, including reservoir characteristics and heterogeneity, fluid properties, well design, injection condition, and composition of injected fluid. Reservoir simulations, together with laboratory experiments at reservoir conditions, can help predict recovery factor. After that, a small-scale pilot test is conducted before undertaking larger-scale operations (Ding et al., 2017). Although this approach may provide solutions to numerous problems, it is costly and time-consuming. Therefore, ML methods emerge as more practical, affordable, rapid, and accurate alternatives.

Alternatively, ML methods have obtained popularity in predicting oil recovery. For example, Ahmadi et al. (2018) applied LSSVM to predict the ultimate oil recovery factor of the miscible CO₂-EOR injection operations at the different rock, fluids, and process conditions. Karacan (2020) employed fuzzy logic to predict recovery factors of the major past and existing U.S. field applications of miscible CO₂-EOR. Table 4 provides further information on ML applications on the CO₂-EOR recovery factor.

4.5. Multi-objective optimization

As the name indicates, multi-objective optimization optimizes multiple objections simultaneously, such as oil recovery factor or cumulative oil production, CO₂ storage, and net present value (NPV). For each objective, running high-fidelity numerical models provides possible solutions to figure out the optimum. However, finding optimal solutions to all objectives simultaneously is not always guaranteed since objectives can compete with each other. For example, to maximize oil recovery, more CO₂ may be needed, leading to higher oil production. However, this might also mean more CO₂ is used, potentially increasing the project's cost, which will also adversely affect the project NPV (You, Ampomah, Sun, et al., 2020). It requires sophisticated optimization techniques to identify solutions that balance these objectives, considering all the constraints involved in the problem. Therefore, ML techniques outperform other methods as an effective, reliable, and stable workflow to co-optimize crude oil recovery, CO₂ sequestration, NPV, and related factors.

Given the complexity of multi-objective optimization, the application of ML on CO₂-EOR is very limited (Table 5 and Table 6) and is strongly restricted by the geological model. Once the reservoir characteristics change, the model must be rebuilt and retrained. The development of ML and optimization workflow is challenging and requires more effort in different oil and gas fields.

Table 4. Summary of ML applications on oil production/recovery factor.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Ahmadi et al. (2018)	LSSVM	46	80% train + 20% test	Oil recovery factor	BHP of injection well, CO₂ injection rate, CO₂ injection concentration, BHP of production well, oil production rate	The hybridization of LSSVM and BBD is statistically correct for predicting RF.	Provided the possibility of using ML and comparing it with commercial software. But limited dataset.	Small dataset and only suitable for similar oil reservoirs. Only valid for the same input parameters range.	7
Chen & Pawar (2019)	MARS, SVR, RF	500, 250, 100	NA	Recovery factor	Thickness, depth, k, Sor, CO₂ injection rate, BHP of production well	MARS has the best performance.	Applied to 5 fields in Permian Basin and had good matches. Heavily relies on a base model and may not fully represent diverse ROZs.	Significant assumptions are made regarding uncertain parameters like residual oil saturation.	8
Karacan (2020)	FL	24	83% train + 17% test	Recovery factor	Lithology, API, ϕ, k, HCPV, depth, net pay, Pi, well spacing, Sorw	FL provided a reasonably accurate prediction.	Though a small dataset, but provides the possibility of using ML in recovery factor prediction.	Too difficult to draw statistical conclusions from such a small dataset.	7
Iskandar & Kurihara (2022)	AR, MLP, LSVM	3653 * 8 wells	40% train + 20% test + 40% validation	Oil, gas, and water production	ϕ, k, formation thickness, BHP, flow capacity, storage capacity	The AR model is best, with long and consistent forecast horizons across wells. LSTM performs well but has shorter forecast horizons. MLP has high variability and short forecast horizons.	First time series forecasting study. No model updating/retraining over time. Overall, it is a solid study.	Limited hyperparameter tuning is done. Only three models were tested.	9

*: The rating for each paper is from the authors’ perspective.

4.6. PVT Properties

For any CO₂ flooding project, it is imperative to comprehend the intricate physical and chemical interactions between CO₂ and the reservoir oil, even when primarily exploring recovery potential. Laboratory investigations and the utilization of available modeling or correlation packages serve as viable methods for analyzing the influence of CO₂ on the physical properties of oil. Nonetheless, conducting a comprehensive laboratory study to obtain an extensive dataset is costly and time-consuming. Furthermore, the available correlation packages are limited in their applicability, rendering them unsuitable for many scenarios.

ML is being increasingly harnessed for tasks such as predicting CO₂ solubility and Interfacial Tension (IFT), as briefly presented in Table 6. Intriguingly, a majority of the studies incorporated the same dataset sourced from Emera & Sarma (2008). Given the relatively small dataset size comprising only 106 data points, the risk of overfitting looms large, casting doubt on the accuracy and generalizability of their ML models. It is evident that a larger and more diverse dataset is required to facilitate a deeper comprehension of the performance of ML techniques in this context.

4.7. CO₂-foam flooding

The implementation of CO₂ injection in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) demonstrates significant potential, but it is accompanied by inherent limitations, including suboptimal sweep efficiency, asphaltenes precipitation, and corrosion of well infrastructure. In response to these challenges, the utilization of CO₂ foam has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance the effectiveness of CO₂-EOR flooding. Foams offer distinct advantages, primarily due to their elevated viscosities compared to pure gases, a property that equips foams with the capability to displace oil from reservoir formations more efficiently (Iskandarov et al., 2022). Furthermore, by obstructing highly permeable pore pathways, foams redirect displaced fluids towards unswept reservoir regions, thereby improving both sweep efficiency and the storage capacity of CO₂ within the reservoir matrix. While ML models have found extensive applications in EOR research, their application in the context of CO₂-foam is still in its nascent stages, and the existing body of literature on this subject remains limited, as evidenced in Table 7.

5. Benefits and limitations of ML

ML exhibits high efficiency when compared with conventional reservoir simulators. Typically, these simulators are performed on 3-D grids comprising one million to several billion cells. The computations tend to be time-consuming, imposing constraints on the feasibility of conducting multiple iterations. Consequently, this limitation reduces the optimization potential for meticulous field development planning. A pivotal role of ML techniques is their capacity to speed up reservoir modeling computations. These models can predict time-dependent variables at 100 to 1000 times faster speeds than traditional simulators. This acceleration in computation velocity via ML methods maintains an equivalent level of functionality (Ng et al., 2023).

Furthermore, extensive research findings have proved the impressive performance of ML methods, consistently yielding accuracy levels exceeding 90% based on statistical quality assessments. This high degree of accuracy demonstrates the confidence in ML's reliability and portends a promising future within the oil and gas industry.

While the advantages of employing ML are widely acknowledged, it is imperative to recognize the associated limitations inherent in ML-based methodologies. A central challenge confronting researchers is obtaining authentic data from experimental and/or field sources. The limited availability of large datasets is also a concern, impacting both the training accuracy and the overall efficacy of the ML models. When faced with restricted data, researchers often use single-shot learning strategies, wherein models are pre-trained on similar datasets and subsequently refined through experience.

Overfitting is a prevalent issue in ML applications, primarily driven by insufficient training data and the absence of well-defined stopping criteria during training. 12% of reviewed research papers contain datasets with fewer than 100 data points, heightening the risk of overfitting. Addressing this problem may involve adjusting the model's structure, including weight modifications. However, it is important to recognize that such alterations can increase model complexity, potentially limiting its generalization beyond the specific dataset.

6. Conclusions

In this work, we have investigated and summarized the employment of ML methods in the application of CO₂-EOR from several areas: MMP, WAG, well location placement, oil production/recovery factor, multi-objective optimization, PVT properties, and CO₂-foam. We list the input parameters, objectives, data sources, results, evaluation, and rating for each area based on the data quality, ML process, and results analysis. The key highlights of this work are as follows:

Our literature review showed that most reports on model performance indicators are limited to the size of the data bank, making it difficult to accurately assess the quality of the model over time or track its drift with new data.
Regarding validation and verification, the CO₂-EOR has many reliable, dependable, and well-established techniques for verification and validation procedures for ML models. The research highlights several issues with current machine learning models, including model scalability, validation and verification deficiencies, and an absence of published data regarding the establishment costs of ML models.
Most CO₂-EOR research focused on MMP predictions and WAG design. The applications in recovery factor, well placement optimization, and PVT properties are limited.
We also found that ANN is the most employed ML algorithm, and GA is the most popular optimization algorithm based on 101 reviewed papers. ANN has been proven to be flexible enough to be implemented to build intelligent proxies.
ML algorithms can greatly reduce the computational cost and time to perform compositional simulation runs. However, ML applications for well placement optimization in CO₂-EOR are very limited.
The reliability of coupled ML-metaheuristic paradigms based on reservoir simulation results needs further investigation.

Nomenclature

AARD	Average absolute relative deviation
AARE	Average absolute relative error
ABC	Artificial bee colony
ACO	Ant colony optimization
ACE	Alternating conditional expectation
AR	Auto-regressive
ANN	Artificial Neural Network
ANFIS	Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
BA	Bee algorithm
BOA	Bayesian optimization algorithm
BPNN	Backpropagation algorithm neural network
BR	Bayesian regularization
CatBoost	Categorical boosting
CCD	Central composite design
CFNN	Cascade forward neural network
CGAN	Conditional generative adversarial network
CM	Committee machine
CNN	Convolutional neural network
COA	Cuckoo optimization algorithm
CSO	Cuckoo search optimization
DA	Dragonfly algorithm
DBN	Deep belief network
DE	Differential evolution
DNN	Dense neural network
ERT	Extremely randomized trees
FCNN	Fully connected neural network
FGIR	Field gas injection rate
FL	Fuzzy logic
FN	Functional network
GA	Genetic algorithm
GB	Gradient boosting
GBDT	Gradient boosting decision tree
GBM	Gradient boost method
GEP	Gene expression programming
GFA	Genetic function approximation
GIR	Gas injection rate
GMDH	Group method of data handling
GP	Genetic programming
GPR	Gaussian process regression
GRNN	Generalized regression neural network
GSA	Gravitational search algorithm
GWO	Grey wolf optimization
He	Hurst exponent
HPSO	Hybrid particle swarm optimization
ICA	Imperialist competitive algorithm
KXGB	Knowledge-based XGB
LGBM	light gradient boosting machine
LM	Levenberg – Marquardt
LR	Lasso regression
LSSVM	Least-squares support vector machine
LSTM	Long short-term memory
MADS	Mesh adaptive direct search
MARS	Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines
MASRD	Mean absolute symmetric relative deviation
MEA	Mind evolutionary algorithm
MF	Membership function
MKF	Mixed kernels function
MLP	Multi-layer perceptron
MLR	Multiple linear regression
MLNN	Multi-layer neural networks
MOPSO	Multi-objective particle swarm optimization
MSE	Mean squared error
NNA	Neural network analysis
NPV	Net present value
NSGA-II	Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm version II
PLS	Partial least squares
POLY	Polynomial function
PSO	Particle swarm optimization
RBFN	Radial-based function networks
RFFI	Random forest feature importance
RR	Ridge regression
RSM	Response surface models
SBFS	Sequential backward floating selection
SBS	Sequential backward selection
SCG	Scaled conjugate gradient
SFS	Sequential forward selection
SFFS	Sequential forward floating selection
SGB	Stochastic gradient boosting
SGR	Solution gas ratio
SHAP	Shapley Additive explanations
SVR	Support vector regression
SVM	Support vector machine
TLBO	Teaching learning-based optimization
TPVT	Total pore volume tested
WIR	Water injection rate
WHFP	Well head flow pressure
XGBoost	Extreme gradient boosting

References

Afzali, S., Mohamadi-Baghmolaei, M., & Zendehboudi, S. (2021). Application of Gene Expression Programming (GEP) in Modeling Hydrocarbon Recovery in WAG Injection Process. Energies, 14(21), 7131. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, K., & Johns, R. T. (2011). Multiple-Mixing-Cell Method for MMP Calculations. SPE Journal, 16(04), 733–742. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, M. A., Zendehboudi, S., & James, L. A. (2017). A reliable strategy to calculate minimum miscibility pressure of CO2-oil system in miscible gas flooding processes. Fuel, 208, 117–126. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, M. A., Zendehboudi, S., & James, L. A. (2018). Developing a robust proxy model of CO2 injection: Coupling Box–Behnken design and a connectionist method. Fuel, 215, 904–914. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, M.-A., & Ebadi, M. (2014). Fuzzy Modeling and Experimental Investigation of Minimum Miscible Pressure in Gas Injection Process. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 378, 1–12. [CrossRef]
Alomair, O. A., & Garrouch, A. A. (2016). A general regression neural network model offers reliable prediction of CO2 minimum miscibility pressure. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 6(3), 351–365. 3. [CrossRef]
Alston, R. B., Kokolis, G. P., & James, C. F. (1985). CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure: A Correlation for Impure CO2 Streams and Live Oil Systems. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 25(02), 268–274. [CrossRef]
Amiri Kolajoobi, R., Emami Niri, M., Amini, S., & Haghshenas, Y. (2023). A Data-Driven Proxy Modeling Approach Adapted to Well Placement Optimization Problem. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 145(1). [CrossRef]
Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., Grigg, R. B., McPherson, B., Will, R. A., Lee, S., Dai, Z., & Pan, F. (2017). Co-optimization of CO2-EOR and storage processes in mature oil reservoirs. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 7(1), 128–142. [CrossRef]
Andersen, P. Ø., Nygård, J. I., & Kengessova, A. (2022). Prediction of Oil Recovery Factor in Stratified Reservoirs after Immiscible Water-Alternating Gas Injection Based on PSO-, GSA-, GWO-, and GA-LSSVM. Energies, 15(2), 656. [CrossRef]
Asante, J., Ampomah, W., & Carther, M. (2023, May 15). Forecasting Oil Recovery Using Long Short Term Memory Neural Machine Learning Technique. SPE Western Regional Meeting. 15 May. [CrossRef]
Asoodeh, M., Gholami, A., & Bagheripour, P. (2014). Oil-CO2 MMP Determination in Competition of Neural Network, Support Vector Regression, and Committee Machine. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology, 35(4), 564–571. [CrossRef]
Belazreg, L., & Mahmood, S. M. (2020). Water alternating gas incremental recovery factor prediction and WAG pilot lessons learned. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 10(2), 249–269. 2. [CrossRef]
Belazreg, L., Mahmood, S. M., & Aulia, A. (2019). Novel approach for predicting water alternating gas injection recovery factor. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(4), 2893–2910. 4. [CrossRef]
Bian, X.-Q., Han, B., Du, Z.-M., Jaubert, J.-N., & Li, M.-J. (2016). Integrating support vector regression with genetic algorithm for CO2-oil minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) in pure and impure CO2 streams. Fuel, 182, 550–557. [CrossRef]
Chemmakh, A., Merzoug, A., Ouadi, H., Ladmia, A., & Rasouli, V. (2021, December 9). Machine Learning Predictive Models to Estimate the Minimum Miscibility Pressure of CO2-Oil System. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. 9 December. [CrossRef]
Chen, B., & Pawar, R. J. (2019). Characterization of CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery in residual oil zones. Energy, 183, 291–304. [CrossRef]
Chen, G., Fu, K., Liang, Z., Sema, T., Li, C., Tontiwachwuthikul, P., & Idem, R. (2014). The genetic algorithm based back propagation neural network for MMP prediction in CO2-EOR process. Fuel, 126, 202–212. [CrossRef]
Chen, G., Wang, X., Liang, Z., Gao, R., Sema, T., Luo, P., Zeng, F., & Tontiwachwuthikul, P. (2013). Simulation of CO2-oil minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) for CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using neural networks. Energy Procedia, 37, 6877–6884. [CrossRef]
Chen, H., Zhang, C., Jia, N., Duncan, I., Yang, S., & Yang, Y. (2021). A machine learning model for predicting the minimum miscibility pressure of CO2 and crude oil system based on a support vector machine algorithm approach. Fuel, 290, 120048. [CrossRef]
Cheraghi, Y., Kord, S., & Mashayekhizadeh, V. (2021). Application of machine learning techniques for selecting the most suitable enhanced oil recovery method; challenges and opportunities. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 205, 108761. [CrossRef]
Choubineh, A., Helalizadeh, A., & Wood, D. A. (2019). Estimation of minimum miscibility pressure of varied gas compositions and reservoir crude oil over a wide range of conditions using an artificial neural network model. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 3(1), 52–66. [CrossRef]
Christiansen, R. L., & Haines, H. K. (1987). Rapid Measurement of Minimum Miscibility Pressure With the Rising-Bubble Apparatus. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 2(04), 523–527. [CrossRef]
Dargahi-Zarandi, A., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Shateri, M., Menad, N. A., & Ahmadi, M. (2020). Modeling minimum miscibility pressure of pure/impure CO2-crude oil systems using adaptive boosting support vector regression: Application to gas injection processes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184, 106499. [CrossRef]
Dehghani, S. A. M., Sefti, M. V., Ameri, A., & Kaveh, N. S. (2008). Minimum miscibility pressure prediction based on a hybrid neural genetic algorithm. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 86(2), 173–185. 2. [CrossRef]
Dehghani, S. A. M., Vafaie Sefti, M., Ameri, A., & Kaveh, N. S. (2006). A hybrid neural-genetic algorithm for predicting pure and impure CO 2 minimum miscibility pressure. In Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering (Vol. 3, Issue 4). www.SID.ir.
Ding, M., Yuan, F., Wang, Y., Xia, X., Chen, W., & Liu, D. (2017). Oil recovery from a CO2 injection in heterogeneous reservoirs: The influence of permeability heterogeneity, CO2-oil miscibility and injection pattern. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 44, 140–149. [CrossRef]
Dong, P., Liao, X., Chen, Z., & Chu, H. (2019). An improved method for predicting CO2 minimum miscibility pressure based on artificial neural network. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 3(4), 355–364. [CrossRef]
Dong, P., Liao, X., Wu, J., Zou, J., Li, R., & Chu, H. (2020, October 25). A New Method for Predicting CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure MMP Based on Deep Learning. SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition. 25 October. [CrossRef]
Ekechukwu, G. K., Falode, O., & Orodu, O. D. (2020). Improved Method for the Estimation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure for Pure and Impure CO2–Crude Oil Systems Using Gaussian Process Machine Learning Approach. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 142(12). [CrossRef]
Emera, M. K., & Sarma, H. K. (2005). Use of genetic algorithm to estimate CO2–oil minimum miscibility pressure—a key parameter in design of CO2 miscible flood. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 46(1–2), 37–52. [CrossRef]
Emera, M. K., & Sarma, H. K. (2008). A Genetic Algorithm-Based Model to Predict CO-Oil Physical Properties for Dead and Live Oil. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 47(02). [CrossRef]
Enab, K., & Ertekin, T. (2021). Screening and optimization of CO2 -WAG injection and fish-bone well structures in low permeability reservoirs using artificial neural network. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 200, 108268. [CrossRef]
F. Al-Khafaji, H., Meng, Q., Hussain, W., Khudhair Mohammed, R., Harash, F., & Alshareef AlFakey, S. (2023). Predicting minimum miscible pressure in pure CO2 flooding using machine learning: Method comparison and sensitivity analysis. Fuel, 354, 129263. [CrossRef]
Fathinasab, M., & Ayatollahi, S. (2016). On the determination of CO 2 –crude oil minimum miscibility pressure using genetic programming combined with constrained multivariable search methods. Fuel, 173, 180–188. [CrossRef]
Ghiasi, M. M., Mohammadi, A. H., & Zendehboudi, S. (2021). Use of hybrid-ANFIS and ensemble methods to calculate minimum miscibility pressure of CO2 - reservoir oil system in miscible flooding process. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 331, 115369. [CrossRef]
Ghoraishy, S. M., Liang, J. T., Green, D. W., & Liang, H. C. (2008, April 20). Application of Bayesian Networks for Predicting the Performance of Gel-Treated Wells in the Arbuckle Formation, Kansas. SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. 20 April. [CrossRef]
Gozalpour, F., Ren, S. R., & Tohidi, B. (2005). CO2 EOR and Storage in Oil Reservoir. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 60(3), 537–546. [CrossRef]
Green, D. W., & Willhite, P. G. (1998). Enhanced oil recovery (Vol. 6). Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Haider, G., Khan, M. A., Ali, F., Nadeem, A., & Abbasi, F. A. (2022, October 31). An Intelligent Approach to Predict Minimum Miscibility Pressure of Injected CO2-Oil System in Miscible Gas Flooding. ADIPEC. 31 October. [CrossRef]
Hamadi, M., El Mehadji, T., Laalam, A., Zeraibi, N., Tomomewo, O. S., Ouadi, H., & Dehdouh, A. (2023). Prediction of Key Parameters in the Design of CO2 Miscible Injection via the Application of Machine Learning Algorithms. Eng, 4(3), 1905–1932. 3. [CrossRef]
Hamdi, Z., & Chenxi, D. (2019, October 21). Accurate Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems. 21 October. [CrossRef]
Hasan, M. M. F., First, E. L., Boukouvala, F., & Floudas, C. A. (2015). A multi-scale framework for CO2 capture, utilization, and sequestration: CCUS and CCU. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 81, 2–21. [CrossRef]
Hassan, A., Elkatatny, S., & Abdulraheem, A. (2019). Intelligent Prediction of Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) During CO2 Flooding Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Sustainability, 11(24), 7020. [CrossRef]
He, Y., Li, W., & Qian, S. (2023). Minimum Miscibility Pressure Prediction Method Based On PSO-GBDT Model. Improved Oil and Gas Recovery. [CrossRef]
Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Ghazanfari, M.-H., Ayatollahi, S., & Masihi, M. (2016). Accurate determination of the CO2-crude oil minimum miscibility pressure of pure and impure CO2 streams: A robust modelling approach. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 94(2), 253–261. [CrossRef]
Holm, L. W., & Josendal, V. A. (1974). Mechanisms of Oil Displacement By Carbon Dioxide. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 26(12), 1427–1438. [CrossRef]
Hosseinzadeh Helaleh, A., & Alizadeh, M. (2016). Performance prediction model of Miscible Surfactant-CO2 displacement in porous media using support vector machine regression with parameters selected by Ant colony optimization. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 30, 388–404. [CrossRef]
Hou, Z., Su, H., & Wang, G. (2022). Study on Minimum Miscibility Pressure of CO2–Oil System Based on Gaussian Process Regression and Particle Swarm Optimization Model. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 144(10). [CrossRef]
Huang, C., Tian, L., Wu, J., Li, M., Li, Z., Li, J., Wang, J., Jiang, L., & Yang, D. (2023). Prediction of minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the crude oil-CO2 systems within a unified and consistent machine learning framework. Fuel, 337, 127194. [CrossRef]
Huang, C., Tian, L., Zhang, T., Chen, J., Wu, J., Wang, H., Wang, J., Jiang, L., & Zhang, K. (2022). Globally optimized machine-learning framework for CO2-hydrocarbon minimum miscibility pressure calculations. Fuel, 329, 125312. [CrossRef]
Huang, R., Wei, C., Li, B., Yang, J., Wu, S., Xu, X., Ou, Y., Xiong, L., Lou, Y., Li, Z., Deng, Y., & Zhang, C. (2021, December 9). Prediction and Optimization of WAG Flooding by Using LSTM Neural Network Model in Middle East Carbonate Reservoir. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. 9 December. [CrossRef]
Huang, Y. F., Huang, G. H., Dong, M. Z., & Feng, G. M. (2003). Development of an artificial neural network model for predicting minimum miscibility pressure in CO2 flooding. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 37(1–2), 83–95. [CrossRef]
Iskandar, U. P., & Kurihara, M. (2022). Time-Series Forecasting of a CO2-EOR and CO2 Storage Project Using a Data-Driven Approach. Energies, 15(13), 4768. [CrossRef]
Iskandarov, J., Fanourgakis, G. S., Ahmed, S., Alameri, W., Froudakis, G. E., & Karanikolos, G. N. (2022). Data-driven prediction of in situ CO2 foam strength for enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration. RSC Advances, 12(55), 35703–35711. 5703. [CrossRef]
Jaber, A. K., Alhuraishawy, A. K., & AL-Bazzaz, W. H. (2019, October 13). A Data-Driven Model for Rapid Evaluation of Miscible CO2-WAG Flooding in Heterogeneous Clastic Reservoirs. SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference. 13 October. [CrossRef]
Junyu, Y., William, A., & Qian, S. (2021, October 19). Optimization of Water-Alternating-CO2 Injection Field Operations Using a Machine-Learning-Assisted Workflow. SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference. 19 October. [CrossRef]
Kamari, A., Arabloo, M., Shokrollahi, A., Gharagheizi, F., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2015). Rapid method to estimate the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) in live reservoir oil systems during CO 2 flooding. Fuel, 153, 310–319. [CrossRef]
Karacan, C. Ö. (2020). A fuzzy logic approach for estimating recovery factors of miscible CO2-EOR projects in the United States. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184, 106533. [CrossRef]
Karkevandi-Talkhooncheh, A., Hajirezaie, S., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Husein, M. M., Karan, K., & Sharifi, M. (2017). Application of adaptive neuro fuzzy interface system optimized with evolutionary algorithms for modeling CO 2 -crude oil minimum miscibility pressure. Fuel, 205, 34–45. [CrossRef]
Karkevandi-Talkhooncheh, A., Rostami, A., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Ahmadi, M., Husein, M. M., & Dabir, B. (2018). Modeling minimum miscibility pressure during pure and impure CO2 flooding using hybrid of radial basis function neural network and evolutionary techniques. Fuel, 220, 270–282. [CrossRef]
Khan, M. R., Kalam, S., Abu-khamsin, S. A., & Asad, A. (2022, October 31). Machine Learning for Prediction of CO2 Foam Flooding Performance. ADIPEC. 31 October. [CrossRef]
Khan, M. R., Kalam, S., Khan, R. A., Tariq, Z., & Abdulraheem, A. (2019, November 11). Comparative Analysis of Intelligent Algorithms to Predict the Minimum Miscibility Pressure for Hydrocarbon Gas Flooding. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. 11 November. [CrossRef]
Kumar, N., Augusto Sampaio, M., Ojha, K., Hoteit, H., & Mandal, A. (2022). Fundamental aspects, mechanisms and emerging possibilities of CO2 miscible flooding in enhanced oil recovery: A review. Fuel, 330, 125633. [CrossRef]
Le Van, S., & Chon, B. H. (2017). Evaluating the critical performances of a CO2–Enhanced oil recovery process using artificial neural network models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 157, 207–222. [CrossRef]
Li, D., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, L., & Yuan, S. (2019). Four Methods to Estimate Minimum Miscibility Pressure of CO2-Oil Based on Machine Learning. Chinese Journal of Chemistry, 37(12), 1271–1278. [CrossRef]
Li, H., Gong, C., Liu, S., Xu, J., & Imani, G. (2022). Machine Learning-Assisted Prediction of Oil Production and CO2 Storage Effect in CO2-Water-Alternating-Gas Injection (CO2-WAG). Applied Sciences, 12(21), 10958. [CrossRef]
Liu, M., Fu, X., Meng, L., Du, X., Zhang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Prediction of CO2 storage performance in reservoirs based on optimized neural networks. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 222, 211428. [CrossRef]
Lv, Q., Zheng, R., Guo, X., Larestani, A., Hadavimoghaddam, F., Riazi, M., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Wang, K., & Li, J. (2023). Modelling minimum miscibility pressure of CO2-crude oil systems using deep learning, tree-based, and thermodynamic models: Application to CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery. Separation and Purification Technology, 310, 123086. [CrossRef]
Lv, W., Tian, W., Yang, Y., Yang, J., Dong, Z., Zhou, Y., & Li, W. (2021). Method for Potential Evaluation and Parameter Optimization for CO2 -WAG in Low Permeability Reservoirs based on Machine Learning. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 651(3), 032038. [CrossRef]
Mahdaviara, M., Nait Amar, M., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Dai, Z., Zhang, C., Xiao, T., & Zhang, X. (2021). Toward smart schemes for modeling CO2 solubility in crude oil: Application to carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery. Fuel, 285, 119147. [CrossRef]
Matthew, D. A. M., Jahanbani Ghahfarokhi, A., Ng, C. S. W., & Nait Amar, M. (2023). Proxy Model Development for the Optimization of Water Alternating CO2 Gas for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energies, 16(8), 3337. [CrossRef]
Menad, N. A., & Noureddine, Z. (2019). An efficient methodology for multi-objective optimization of water alternating CO2 EOR process. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 99, 154–165. [CrossRef]
Mohagheghian, E., James, L. A., & Haynes, R. D. (2018). Optimization of hydrocarbon water alternating gas in the Norne field: Application of evolutionary algorithms. Fuel, 223, 86–98. [CrossRef]
Moosavi, S. R., Wood, D. A., Ahmadi, M. A., & Choubineh, A. (2019). ANN-Based Prediction of Laboratory-Scale Performance of CO2-Foam Flooding for Improving Oil Recovery. Natural Resources Research, 28(4), 1619–1637. [CrossRef]
Nait Amar, M., Jahanbani Ghahfarokhi, A., Ng, C. S. W., & Zeraibi, N. (2021). Optimization of WAG in real geological field using rigorous soft computing techniques and nature-inspired algorithms. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 206, 109038. [CrossRef]
Nait Amar, M., & Zeraibi, N. (2020). Application of hybrid support vector regression artificial bee colony for prediction of MMP in CO2-EOR process. Petroleum, 6(4), 415–422. [CrossRef]
Nait Amar, M., Zeraibi, N., & Redouane, K. (2018). Optimization of WAG Process Using Dynamic Proxy, Genetic Algorithm and Ant Colony Optimization. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43(11), 6399–6412. 11). [CrossRef]
Nezhad, A. B., Mousavi, S. M., & Aghahoseini, S. (2011). Development of an artificial neural network model to predict CO 2 minimum miscibility pressure.
Ng, C. S. W., Nait Amar, M., Jahanbani Ghahfarokhi, A., & Imsland, L. S. (2023). A Survey on the Application of Machine Learning and Metaheuristic Algorithms for Intelligent Proxy Modeling in Reservoir Simulation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 170, 108107. [CrossRef]
Nwachukwu, A., Jeong, H., Pyrcz, M., & Lake, L. W. (2018). Fast evaluation of well placements in heterogeneous reservoir models using machine learning. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 163, 463–475. [CrossRef]
Nwachukwu, A., Jeong, H., Sun, A., Pyrcz, M., & Lake, L. W. (2018, April 14). Machine Learning-Based Optimization of Well Locations and WAG Parameters under Geologic Uncertainty. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference. 14 April. [CrossRef]
Orr, F. M., & Jensen, C. M. (1984). Interpretation of Pressure-Composition Phase Diagrams for CO2/Crude-Oil Systems. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 24(05), 485–497. [CrossRef]
Pham, Q. C., Trinh, T. Q., & James, L. A. (2021, June 21). Data Driven Prediction of the Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) Between Mixtures of Oil and Gas Using Deep Learning. Volume 1: Offshore Technology. 21 June. [CrossRef]
Raha Moosavi, S., Wood, D. A., & Samadani, A. (2020). Modeling Performance of Foam-CO2 Reservoir Flooding with Hybrid Machine-learning Models Combining a Radial Basis Function and Evolutionary Algorithms. Computational Research Progress in Applied Science & Engineering CRPASE, 06(01), 1–8.
Rao, D. N., & Lee, J. I. (2002). Application of the new vanishing interfacial tension technique to evaluate miscibility conditions for the Terra Nova Offshore Project. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 35(3–4), 247–262. [CrossRef]
Rayhani, M., Tatar, A., Shokrollahi, A., & Zeinijahromi, A. (2023). Exploring the power of machine learning in analyzing the gas minimum miscibility pressure in hydrocarbons. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 226, 211778. [CrossRef]
Rezaei, M., Eftekhari, M., Schaffie, M., & Ranjbar, M. (2013). A CO2-oil minimum miscibility pressure model based on multi-gene genetic programming. Energy Exploration and Exploitation, 31(4), 607–622. [CrossRef]
Rostami, A., Arabloo, M., Kamari, A., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2017). Modeling of CO2 solubility in crude oil during carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery using gene expression programming. Fuel, 210, 768–782. [CrossRef]
Rostami, A., Arabloo, M., Lee, M., & Bahadori, A. (2018). Applying SVM framework for modeling of CO2 solubility in oil during CO2 flooding. Fuel, 214, 73–87. [CrossRef]
Saeedi Dehaghani, A. H., & Soleimani, R. (2020). Prediction of CO2-Oil Minimum Miscibility Pressure Using Soft Computing Methods. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 43(7), 1361–1371. [CrossRef]
Satter, A., & Thakur, G. C. (1994). Integrated petroleum reservoir management: a team approach.
Sayyad, H., Manshad, A. K., & Rostami, H. (2014). Application of hybrid neural particle swarm optimization algorithm for prediction of MMP. Fuel, 116, 625–633. [CrossRef]
Selveindran, A., Zargar, Z., Razavi, S. M., & Thakur, G. (2021). Fast Optimization of Injector Selection for Waterflood, CO2-EOR and Storage Using an Innovative Machine Learning Framework. Energies, 14(22), 7628. [CrossRef]
Shakeel, M., Khan, M. R., Kalam, S., Khan, R. A., Patil, S., & Dar, U. A. (2023). Machine Learning for Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure. SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, MEOS, Proceedings. [CrossRef]
Shen, B., Yang, S., Gao, X., Li, S., Yang, K., Hu, J., & Chen, H. (2023). Interpretable knowledge-guided framework for modeling minimum miscible pressure of CO2-oil system in CO2-EOR projects. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 118, 105687. [CrossRef]
Shokir, E. M. E.-M. (2007a). CO2–oil minimum miscibility pressure model for impure and pure CO2 streams. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 58(1–2), 173–185. [CrossRef]
Shokir, E. M. E.-M. (2007b). CO2–oil minimum miscibility pressure model for impure and pure CO2 streams. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 58(1–2), 173–185. [CrossRef]
Shokrollahi, A., Arabloo, M., Gharagheizi, F., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2013). Intelligent model for prediction of CO2 – Reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure. Fuel, 112, 375–384. [CrossRef]
Singh, G., Davudov, D., Al-Shalabi, E. W., Malkov, A., Venkatraman, A., Mansour, A., Abdul-Rahman, R., & Das, B. (2023, January 24). A Hybrid Neural Workflow for Optimal Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding. SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition. 24 January. [CrossRef]
Sinha, U., Dindoruk, B., & Soliman, M. (2023). Physics guided data-driven model to estimate minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) for hydrocarbon gases. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 224, 211389. [CrossRef]
Sinha, U., Dindoruk, B., & Soliman, M. (2020, August 30). Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure MMP Using Machine Learning Techniques. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference. 30 August. [CrossRef]
Sun, Q., Ampomah, W., You, J., Cather, M., & Balch, R. (2021). Practical CO2—WAG Field Operational Designs Using Hybrid Numerical-Machine-Learning Approaches. Energies, 14(4), 1055. [CrossRef]
Tariq, Z., Aljawad, M. S., Hasan, A., Murtaza, M., Mohammed, E., El-Husseiny, A., Alarifi, S. A., Mahmoud, M., & Abdulraheem, A. (2021). A systematic review of data science and machine learning applications to the oil and gas industry. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 11(12), 4339–4374. [CrossRef]
Tarybakhsh, M. R., Assareh, M., Sadeghi, M. T., & Ahmadi, A. (2018). Improved Minimum Miscibility Pressure Prediction for Gas Injection Process in Petroleum Reservoir. Natural Resources Research, 27(4), 517–529. [CrossRef]
Tatar, A., Shokrollahi, A., Mesbah, M., Rashid, S., Arabloo, M., & Bahadori, A. (2013). Implementing Radial Basis Function Networks for modeling CO2-reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 15, 82–92. [CrossRef]
Tian, Y., Ju, B., Yang, Y., Wang, H., Dong, Y., Liu, N., Ma, S., & Yu, J. (2020). Estimation of minimum miscibility pressure during CO2 flooding in hydrocarbon reservoirs using an optimized neural network. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 38(6), 2485–2506. [CrossRef]
Van, S. Le, & Chon, B. H. (2018). Effective Prediction and Management of a CO2 Flooding Process for Enhancing Oil Recovery Using Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 140(3). [CrossRef]
Vo Thanh, H., Sheini Dashtgoli, D., Zhang, H., & Min, B. (2023). Machine-learning-based prediction of oil recovery factor for experimental CO2-Foam chemical EOR: Implications for carbon utilization projects. Energy, 278, 127860. [CrossRef]
Vo Thanh, H., Sugai, Y., & Sasaki, K. (2020). Application of artificial neural network for predicting the performance of CO2 enhanced oil recovery and storage in residual oil zones. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 18204. 1. [CrossRef]
Wang, L., Yao, Y., Luo, X., Daniel Adenutsi, C., Zhao, G., & Lai, F. (2023). A critical review on intelligent optimization algorithms and surrogate models for conventional and unconventional reservoir production optimization. Fuel, 350, 128826. [CrossRef]
Xiong, X., & Lee, K. J. (2020). Data-driven modeling to optimize the injection well placement for waterflooding in heterogeneous reservoirs applying artificial neural networks and reducing observation cost. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 38(6), 2413–2435. [CrossRef]
Yang, G. (2021, September 15). Minimum Miscibility Pressure of Gas Injection in Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 15 September. [CrossRef]
Yang, G., Jiang, R., Li, X., & Jiang, Y. (2018, April 14). Evaluation of Polymer Flooding Performance Using Water-Polymer Interference Factor for an Offshore Oil field in Bohai Gulf: A Case Study. Day 5 Wed, April 18, 2018. 14 April. [CrossRef]
Yang, G., & Li, X. (2020). Modified Peng-Robinson equation of state for CO2/hydrocarbon systems within nanopores. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 84, 103700. [CrossRef]
Yellig, W. F., & Metcalfe, R. S. (1980). Determination and Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressures (includes associated paper 8876 ). Journal of Petroleum Technology, 32(01), 160–168. [CrossRef]
Yongmao, H., Zenggui, W., Binshan, J., Yueming, C., Xiangjie, L., & Petro, X. (2004, August 2). Laboratory Investigation of CO2 Flooding. Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition. 2 August. [CrossRef]
You, J., Ampomah, W., Kutsienyo, E. J., Sun, Q., Balch, R. S., Aggrey, W. N., & Cather, M. (2019, June 3). Assessment of Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage Capacity Using Machine Learning and Optimization Framework. SPE Europec Featured at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition. 3 June. [CrossRef]
You, J., Ampomah, W., Morgan, A., Sun, Q., & Huang, X. (2021). A comprehensive techno-eco-assessment of CO2 enhanced oil recovery projects using a machine-learning assisted workflow. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 111, 103480. [CrossRef]
You, J., Ampomah, W., & Sun, Q. (2020). Development and application of a machine learning based multi-objective optimization workflow for CO2-EOR projects. Fuel, 264, 116758. [CrossRef]
You, J., Ampomah, W., Sun, Q., Kutsienyo, E. J., Balch, R. S., & Cather, M. (2019, September 23). Multi-Objective Optimization of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects Using a Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approach. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 23 September. [CrossRef]
You, J., Ampomah, W., Sun, Q., Kutsienyo, E. J., Balch, R. S., Dai, Z., Cather, M., & Zhang, X. (2020). Machine learning based co-optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration and oil recovery in CO2-EOR project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120866. [CrossRef]
You, J., & Lee, K. J. (2022). Pore-Scale Numerical Investigations of the Impact of Mineral Dissolution and Transport on the Heterogeneity of Fracture Systems During CO2-Enriched Brine Injection. SPE Journal, 27(02), 1379–1395. [CrossRef]
YOUSEF, A. M., KAVOUSI, G. P., ALNUAIMI, M., & ALATRACH, Y. (2020). Predictive data analytics application for enhanced oil recovery in a mature field in the Middle East. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 47(2), 393–399. [CrossRef]
Zargar, G., Bagheripour, P., Asoodeh, M., & Gholami, A. (2015). Oil-CO₂ minimum miscible pressure (MMP) determination using a stimulated smart approach. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 93(10), 1730–1735. [CrossRef]
Zendehboudi, S., Ahmadi, M. A., Bahadori, A., Shafiei, A., & Babadagli, T. (2013). A developed smart technique to predict minimum miscible pressure-eor implications. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 91(7), 1325–1337. [CrossRef]
Zhong, Z., & Carr, T. R. (2016). Application of mixed kernels function (MKF) based support vector regression model (SVR) for CO₂–Reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure prediction. Fuel, 184, 590–603. [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Distribution of different EOR projects worldwide (Cheraghi et al., 2021.)

Figure 2. Examples of different machine learning algorithms.

Figure 3. Representative intelligent optimization algorithms (Wang et al., 2023.)

Figure 5. Occurrence of ML algorithms in WAG.

Table 1. Summary of ML applications on CO₂-EOR MMP.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Huang et al. (2003)	ANN	N/A	N/A	Pure CO₂ (T_R, x_vol, MW_C5+, x_int), impure CO₂ (y_H2S, y_N2, y_CH4, y_SO2→F_imp)	ANN can predict MMP.	First applied ANN. ANN is better than other statistical models.	Need to separate pure CO₂ and impure CO₂.	7
Emera & Sarma (2005)	GA	N/A	N/A	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/(y_C1 + y_H2S + y_CO2 + y_N2 + y_C2-C4).	GA is best for predicting MMP and impurity factors.	First used GA. Limited input parameters (only 3 variables).	Pure CO₂. MW_C7+ only up to 268.	7
Dehghani et al. (2006)	GA	55	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int.	GA is better than conventional methods.	Can predict pure and impure CO₂. But limited input parameters and data points.	Limited input parameters and data points.	6
Shokir, (2007)	ACE	45	50% train+ 50% test	T_R, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2-C4, x_C1+N2, x_int	Can predict relatively accurate MMP for pure and impure CO₂.	Can predict pure and impure CO₂. But very limited data points. It may have overfitting.	valid only for C1, N₂, H₂S, and C2–C4 contents in the injected CO₂ stream.	6
Dehghani et al. (2008)	ANN-GA	46	N/A	T_R, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2-C4, x_C1+N2, x_int	GA-ANN is better than Shokir (2007), Emera and Sarma (2005).	It can be applied to both CO₂ and natural gas streams.	Limited data points and only ANN architecture is tested.	6
Nezhad et al. (2011)	ANN	179	N/A	T_R, x_vol, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_volatile, y_intermediate	ANN is acceptable	Acceptable data points but not detailed explanations.	Local minima or overfitting	8
Shokrollahi et al. (2013)	LSSVM	147	80% train + 10% test + 10% validate	T_R, x_vol, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_C1, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C2-C5	First applied LSSVM.	It can be used for both pure and impure CO₂. Also applied outlier analysis	Valid only for the impurity contents of C1, N₂, H₂S, and C₂-C_5.	8
Tatar et al. (2013)	RBFN	147	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2-C5, (x_C1 + x_N2)/(x_C2-_C4+ x_H2S + x_CO2)	Better than Emera and Sarma’s model.	Compared with almost all available empirical correlations.	Limited data points	8
Zendehboudi et al. (2013)	ANN-PSO	350	71% train + 29% test	T_R, x_vol, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_C1, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C2-C4	ANN-PSO is best.	Though it has large datasets, but only suitable for fixed input parameters.	Only valid for specific conditions	8
Chen et al. (2013)	ANN	83	70% train + 30% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_int, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, and y_N2	ANN provides the least errors.	May have overfitting.	Small datasets	7
Asoodeh et al. (2014)	CM (NN-SVR)	55	N/A	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_C2-C4, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, and y_N2	CM is better than NN and SVR.	Limited data points and may have overfitting.	Small datasets	6
Rezaei et al. (2013)	GP	43	N/A	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	GP provides the best estimation.	Limited data points and may have overfitting.	Small datasets and only consider pure CO₂.	6
Chen et al. (2014)	GA-BPNN	85	75% train + 25% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_vol, x_C5-C6, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2-C4, x_int	Both pure and impure CO₂, better than other correlations.	It can be applied to both pure and impure CO₂ but may have overfitting.	Limited data points.GA is time-consuming.	7
Ahmadi & Ebadi (2014)	FL	59	93% train + 7% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, T_C	The curve shape membership function has the lowest error.	Limited data points and a high possibility of overfitting.	Only four experimental results for testing.	6
Sayyad et al. (2014)	ANN-PSO	38	N/A	T_R, x_vol, MW_C5+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2, y_C_2-C5	Better than Emera and Sarma, Shokir.	Only valid for fixed inputs	Limited data points	6
Zargar et al. (2015)	GRNN	N/A	N/A	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_C2-C4, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, and y_N2.	GRNN is an efficient computational structure. GA reduces the runs of GRNNs.	Though compared with most known correlations, but unknown about the data source.	Need more information about the treatment of data.	6
Kamari et al. (2015)	GEP	135	80% train + 10% test + 10% validate	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, x_C2-C4, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	GEP provides better prediction	First use GEP, compared with correlations.	AARD is a little high, at 10%.	8
Bian et al. (2016)	SVR-GA	150	67% train + 23% test83% train + 17% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	Better than other empirical correlations	Can be used for pure and impure CO₂ and low AARD.	Separate pure and impure CO_2.	9
Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. (2016)	MLP	147	70% train + 15% test + 15% validate	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	Can predict both pure and impure CO₂.	Simple and reliable.	Treatment of inputs may be too simple.	8
Zhong & Carr (2016)	MKF-SVM	147	90% train + 10% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	The mixed kernel provides better performance.	Treatment of inputs may be too simple.	Did not consider the effect of N₂, H₂S.	8
Fathinasab & Ayatollahi (2016)	GP	270	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_cm, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	GP provides the best prediction.	Relatively large datasets but may simplify the inputs.	AARE is a little high (11.76%).	7
Alomair & Garrouch (2016)	GRNN	113	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C5+, MW_C7+, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_CO2, x_H2S, x_N2.	GRNN is better than five empirical correlations	Too many inputs and no further comparison between GRNN and other ML methods.	Does not consider the purity of CO₂.	7
Karkevandi-Talkhooncheh et al. (2017)	ANFIS	270	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_int	ANFIS-PSO is the best among the five optimization methods.	Very comprehensive comparison with available models and different optimizations.	Further applicability may be needed.	9
Ahmadi et al. (2017)	GEP	N/A	N/A	T_R, T_cm, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	GEP is better than traditional correlations.	Unknown about datasets.	Further validation may be needed.	6
Karkevandi-Talkhooncheh et al. (2018)	RBF-GA/ PSO/ICA/ACO/DE	270	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_C2-C4, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	ICA-RBF is best	Comparable large datasets. Five algorithms were applied.	Further applicability may be needed.	9
Tarybakhsh et al. (2018)	SVR-GA, MLP, RBF, GRNN	135	92.5% train + 7.5% test	T_R, MW_{C2-C6 (OIL)}, MW_C7+, SG_C7+, MW_{C2-C6 (GAS),} y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	SVT-GA is best.	Too many input parameters may cause a high possibility of overfitting.	The R² is as high as 0.999. Too perfect to be reliable.	6
Dong et al. (2019)	ANN	122	82% train + 18% test	H₂S, CO₂, N₂, C1, C2… C36+	ANN can be used to predict MMP.	Too many inputs. No dominant input selection.	Input variables were assumed based on theavailability of data.	7
Hamdi & Chenxi (2019)	ANFIS	48	73% train + 27% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_int	Gaussian MF is the best among the five MFs. ANFIS is better than ANN.	Though applied five MF but limited data points.	Limited data points and does not consider the existence of CO₂.	6
Khan et al. (2019)	ANN, FN, SVM	51	70% train + 30% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_C1, x_C2-C6, MW_C2+, x_C2	ANN is best	Compared three methods but input parameters are overlapping.	Limited data points and does not consider the existence of CO₂.	6
Choubineh et al. (2019)	ANN	251	75% train + 10% test + 15% validate	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, SG	ANN is best compared with empirical correlations	Relatively large dataset. Use gas SG instead.	Further applicability may be needed.	8
Li et al. (2019)	NNA, GFA, MLR, PLS	136	N/A	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_C2-C5, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	ANN is best among both empirical and other algorithms.	Unclear about how to split the data.	Further applicability may be needed.	8
Hassan et al. (2019)	ANN, RBF, GRNN, FL	100	70% train + 30% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_C2-C6	RBF provides the highest accuracy.	Only three input parameters may simplify the model.	Does not consider the purity of CO₂ and the limited dataset.	7
Sinha et al. (2020)	Linear SVM/KNN/RF/ANN	N/A	67% train + 33% test	T_R, MW_C7+, MW_Oil, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_CO2, x_H2S, and x_N2.	Modified correlation with linear SVR and hybrid method with RF is best.	Only need oil composition and TR. Does not consider the purity of CO₂.	MMP range 1000 - 4900 pis.	7
Nait Amar & Zeraibi (2020)	SVR-ABC	201	87% train + 13% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, x_C2-C4	SVR-ABC is better SVR-TE	The choice of inputs is limited	Limited comparison.	8
Dargahi-Zarandi et al. (2020)	AdaBoost SVR, GDMH, MLP	270	67% train + 33% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_C2-C4, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	AdaBoost SVR is best.	Create a 3-D plot for better visualization.	Further applicability was limited	9
Tian et al. (2020)	BP-NN (GA, MEA, PSO, ABC, DA)	152	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2.	DA-BP has the highest accuracy.	Compared with empirical correlations and GA-SVR.	Too many input parameters may have overfitting.	8
Ekechukwu et al. (2020)	GPR	137	90% train + 10% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	GPR has higher accuracy than other models.	Very comprehensive comparison. A larger dataset may be better.	Further validation with experiments may be needed.	8
Saeedi Dehaghani & Soleimani (2020)	SGB, ANN, ANN-PSO, ANN-TLBO	144	75% train + 25% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol, x_int, y_CO2, y_C1, y_int, y_N2.	PSO and TLBO can help improve the accuracy of the ANN model. SGB is better than ANN.	First applied SGB. Maybe compared with other optimization methods will be better.	Further validation with experiments may be needed.	8
Dong et al. (2020)	FCNN	122	82% train + 18% test	x_CO2, x_H2S, x_N2, x_C1, x_C2,x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6,…,x_C36+.	L2 regularization and Dropout can help reduce overfitting.	Alleviate overfitting but small datasets.	Small datasets.	7
Chen et al. (2021)	SVM	147	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_vol, x_C2-C4, x_C5-C6, y_CO2, y_HC, y_C1, and y_N2.	POLY kernel is more accurate. MW_C7+ and x_C5-C6 should not be considered.	Very complete and comprehensive. Includes optimization and evaluation.	More persuasive with a large dataset.	9
Ghiasi et al. (2021)	ANFIS, AdaBoost-CART	N/A	90% train + 10% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1-C5, and y_N2	The novel AdaBoost-The CART model is the most reliable.	The size of the dataset is unknown. First one to use AdaBoost.	May have overfitting and validation is not strong.	7
Chemmakh et al. (2021)	ANN, SVR-GA	147 (pure CO₂), 200 (impure CO₂)	NA	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	ANN and SVR-GA are reliable to use.	The novelty of work is not clear.	Only compared with empirical correlations.	7
Pham et al. (2021)	FCNN	250	80% train + 20% test	T_R, x_vol/x_int, MW, y_C1, y_C2+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2	Multiple FCN together with Early Stopping and K-fold cross validation has high prediction of MMP.	Applied deep learning – multiple FCN to predict MMP. Limited comparisons and validations.	Only compared with decision tree and random forest.	7
Haider et al. (2022)	ANN	201	70% train + 30% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_CO2, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_N2.	An empirical correlation is developed based on ANN.	Too many inputs and a high possibility of overfitting.	Need further validation with other reservoir fluid and injected gas.	7
Huang et al. (2022)	CGAN-BOA	180	60% train + 20% test + 20% validate	T_R, MW_C7+, x_CO2, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_N2, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2, y_C3, y_C4, y_C5, y_C6, y_C7+.	CGAN-BOA and ANN are better than SVR-RBF and SVR-POLY	Proved deep learning has the potential for predicting MMP.	May have overfitting problems given 21 input parameters.	8
He et al. (2023)	GBDT-PSO	195	85% train + 15% test	T_R, x_CO2, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_N2,	GBDT is better than LR, RR, RF, MLP	Improved GBDT by using PSO. But not a comprehensive comparison.	Only GBDT was optimized. Other algorithms could also be tuned and compared.	7
Hou et al. (2022)	GPR-PSO	365	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_C2-C5, y_N2.	GPR-PSO provides the highest accuracy.	Comprehensive comparison and large datasets.	The model was only validated with literature data.	9
Rayhani et al. (2023)	SFS, SBS, SFFS, SBFS, LR, RFFI	812	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C7+, MW_gas, x_C5, x_C6, x_C2-C6	SBFS provides the highest accuracy	Large datasets. Comprehensive data selection and model comparison.	Further applicability with field data or commercial simulation was limited.	9
Shakeel et al. (2023)	ANN, ANFIS	105	70% train + 30% test	T_R, MW_C7+, x_vol, x_C2-C4, x_C5-C6, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_HC, y_N2.	ANN is better than ANFIS; the trainlm performs best.	Demonstrated good accuracy but lack of uncertainty analysis.	Limited dataset and only two ML algorithms were tested.	7
Shen et al. (2023)	XGBoost, TabNet, KXGB, KTabNet	421	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_C1, y_C2-C5, y_HC, and y_N2	KXGB is best. KTabNet can be used as an alternative.	Large datasets. Comprehensive model comparison. New insights into deep learning.	Need improvement of feature comprehensiveness.	9
Lv et al. (2023)	XGBoost, CatBoost, LGBM, RF, deep MLN, DBN, CNN	310	80% train + 20% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	CatBoost outperforms than other AI techniques.	Comprehensive model comparison and evaluation. New insights into deep learning.	The accuracy depends on the databank. A larger dataset will be more robust.	9
Hamadi et al. (2023)	MLP-Adam, SVR-RBF, XGBoost	193	84% train + 16% test	T_R, T_C, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_int	XGBoost provides the best prediction for both pure and impure CO₂.	Not comprehensive comparison and a limited dataset.	Limited dataset and only two ML algorithms were tested	7
Huang et al. (2023)	1D-CNN, SHAP	193	NA	T_R, MW_C7+, x_CO2, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_N2, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2, y_C3, y_C4, y_C5, y_C6, y_C7+.	MMPs from the slim tube and rising bubble are different. 1D-CNN performs best.	It is novel in the SHAP application, but the comparison with other ML models is limited.	Further applicability with field data or commercial simulation was limited.	8
Al-Khafaji et al. (2023)	MLR, SVR, DT, RF, KNN	147 (type 1), 197 (type 2), 28 (type 3)	80% train + 20% test	Type 1: T_R, MW_C5+, x_vol/x_intType 2: MW_C7+, x_vol, x_int, x_C5-C6, x_C7+, y_CO2, y_H2S, y_N2, y_C1, y_C2-C6, y_C7+.Type 3: T_R, MW_C6+, x_vol, x_int, x_C6+, API, sp.gr, Pb.	KNN has the highest efficient accuracy and lowest complexity.	Have a broad range of data including both experimental and field data. Performed thorough comparisons.	Only pure CO_2.	9
Sinha et al. (2023)	Light GBM	205	80% train + 20% test	T_R, MW_C7+, MW_Oil, x_C1, x_C2, x_C3, x_C4, x_C5, x_C6, x_C7+, x_CO2, x_H2S, x_N2.	An expanded range is developed with Light GBM.	Compared with empirical and EOS correlations. First used Light GBM in MMP prediction.	Further applicability with field data or commercial simulation was limited.	8

*: The rating for each paper is from the authors’ perspective.

Table 5. Summary of ML applications on multi-objective optimizations.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Ampomah et al. (2017)	GA	NA	NA	Oil recover + CO₂ storage	NA	The proxy models to determine the optimal operational parameters, including injection/production rates, pressure, and WAG cycles	First used proxy models and GA to optimize oil recovery and CO₂ storage simultaneously. But relies heavily on having an accurate reservoir mode.	Optimal parameters are specific to this reservoir - and not necessarily generalizable.	7
You, Ampomah, Sun, et al. (2019)	RBFNN	160	N/A	Cumulative oil production + CO₂ storage + NPV	water cycle, gas cycle, BHP of producer, water injection rate	The proxy model is built based on RBFNN for optimization.	The overall prediction is acceptable, but the CO₂ storage prediction is much higher.	The CO₂ storage optimization is 18% higher than the baseline.	7
You, Ampomah, Kutsienyo, et al. (2019)	ANN-PSO	820 (numerical model)	80% train + 10% test + 10% validation	Cumulative oil production + CO₂ storage + NPV	water cycle, gas cycle, BHP of producer, water injection rate	The optimization study showed promising results for multiple objectives.	Developed a novel hybrid optimization for multiple objective functions. But only validated with field case.	Only four input parameters are considered.	7
Vo Thanh et al. (2020)	ANN-PSO	351 (numerical model)	80% train + 10% test + 10% validation	Cumulative oil production + cumulative CO₂ storage +cumulative CO₂ retained	ϕ, k, Sorg, Sorw, BHP of producer, CO₂ injection rate	ANN can forecast the performance of CO₂ EOR and storage in a residual oil zone	The ANN provides R² of 0.99 and MSE of less than 2%, but the application in other types of reservoirs is questionable.	Case specific.	7

*: The rating for each paper is from the author’s perspective.

Table 6. Summary of ML application on PVT properties.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Emera & Sarma (2008)	GA	106 (dead oil), 74 (live oil)	NA	CO₂ solubility, oil swelling factor, CO₂-oil density, and viscosity.	API, Ps, T, MW	The GA-base correlations provided the highest accuracy	First applied GA in CO₂-oil properties prediction. Will be more helpful if a full dataset is provided.	Validated over a certain data range. May not be reliable if it is out of data range.	8
Rostami et al. (2017)	ANN, GEP	106 (dead oil), 74 (live oil)	80% train + 20% test	CO₂ solubility	Ps, T, MW, γ, Pb	GEP is more accurate than ANN for dead oil.	Compared with several empirical methods. More comparisons between ML models will be more persuasive.	Limited dataset on live oil.	8
Rostami et al. (2018)	LSSVM	106 (dead oil), 74 (live oil)	70% train + 15% test + 15% validation	CO₂ solubility	Ps, T, MW, γ	LSSVM showed higher accuracy compared to previous empirical correlations.	More rigorous validation against experimental data equations of state models would be useful.	Only a few literature models were compared.	7
Mahdaviara et al. (2021)	MLP, RBF (GA, DE, FA), GMDH	NA	NA	CO₂ solubility	Ps, T, MW, γ, Pb	MLP-LM and MLP-SCG are better at predicting solubility. GMDH is better than LSSVM.	Compared with various models and optimization methods. But unknown for the dataset.	Not known for the dataset.	8
Hamadi et al. (2023)	MLP-Adam, SVR-RBF, XGBoost	105 (dead oil), 74 (live oil)	80% train + 20% test	CO₂ solubility, IFT	Ps, T, MW, γ, Pb	SVR-RBF provided the best accuracy	Limited comparisons between different models.	Given the year that this paper was published, the dataset is small.	7

*: The rating for each paper is from the author’s perspective.

Table 7. Summary of ML application on CO2-foam EOR.

Authors	Methods	Dataset	Train/Test/Validate	Objectives	Inputs	Results	Evaluation	Limitations	Rating*
Moosavi et al. (2019)	MLP, RBF (GA, COA)	214	80% train + 20% test75% train + 25% test90% train + 10% test	Oil flow rate and recovery factor	Surfactant kind, ϕ, K, PV of core, Soi, injected foam PV	Both MLP and RBF provide high accuracy with R² up to 0.99.	The earliest research on CO₂-foam EOR. Only focus on laboratory data.	Only studied two methods, and there was no comparison among other ML algorithms.	8
Raha Moosavi et al. (2020)	RBF (TLBO, PSO, GA, ICA)	214	80% train + 20% test	Oil flow rate and recovery factor	Surfactant kind, ϕ, K, PV of core, Soi, injected foam PV	RBF-TLBO provides the highest accuracy.	Proved ML can provide high accuracy (R² can reach 0.999), but is only limited to coreflood.	Limited to laboratory experiments.	8
Iskandarov et al. (2022)	DT, RF, ERT, GB, XGBoost, ANN	145	70% train + 30% test	Surfactant stabilized CO₂ apparent foam viscosity	Shear rate, Darcy velocity, surfactant concentration, salinity, foam quality, T, and pressure	ML can provide reliable prediction, and ANN provides the highest accuracy.	Proved ML can predict for both bulk and sandstone formation under various conditions.	The dataset size is relatively small and may have overfitting.	8
Khan et al. (2022)	XGBoost	200	70% train + 30% test	Oil recovery factor	Foam type, Soi, total PV tested, ϕ, K, injected foam PV	XGBoost can provide high accuracy.	Proved XGBoost can be used for CO₂-foam. Limited to laboratory data.	Only one ML is applied. No other comparisons.	7
Vo Thanh et al. (2023)	GRNN, CFNN-LM, CFNN-BR, XGBoost	260	70% train + 30% test	Oil recovery factor	IOIP, TPVT, ϕ, K, injected foam PV	Porosity is the most significant parameter. GRNN has the highest accuracy.	Comprehensive and detailed description.	Limited to laboratory experiments.	9

*: The rating for each paper is from the author’s perspective.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Choose an area of interest and we will send you notifications of new preprints at your preferred frequency.

Disclaimer

A Comprehensive Summary of the Application of Machine Learning Techniques for CO2-EOR Projects

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Mechanisms and process of CO2-EOR

3. Summary of machine learning approaches

4. Application of ML in CO2-EOR

4.1. Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP)

4.2. Water-alternating-gas (WAG)

4.3. Well placement optimization (WPO)

4.4. Oil production/recovery factor

4.5. Multi-objective optimization

4.6. PVT Properties

4.7. CO2-foam flooding

5. Benefits and limitations of ML

6. Conclusions

Nomenclature

References

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Subscribe

A Comprehensive Summary of the Application of Machine Learning Techniques for CO₂-EOR Projects

2. Mechanisms and process of CO₂-EOR

4. Application of ML in CO₂-EOR

4.7. CO₂-foam flooding