# A New CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR Methods Screening Model Based on Interdependency Parameters
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Implementation  
The simultaneous and individual combination screening model was implemented and the results were compared with the real conditions in the corresponding fields. The model for miscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR was implemented only in Canadian fields. The reservoir properties and reference sources are shown in Table 5. The MMP values were obtained from the application of the Yellig-Metcalfe empirical correlation, whereas the other reservoir properties were collected from references and missing data were filled by mean imputation. The combination screening models for miscible and immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR were reviewed and compared with the screening model presented by [PERSON] et al. [10], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11], and [PERSON] et al. [5]. Table 6 shows the implementation results of several screening methods in miscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR fields. The proposed simultaneous and individual combination screening model recommended the injection of both miscible and immiscible CO\({}_{2}\) for the six fields. The screening results match the actual conditions and meet the real physical phenomena. The reservoir that is suitable for miscible CO\({}_{2}\) injection should also be appropriate for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR. In the meantime, [PERSON] et al. 's model recommended that four fields were suitable for miscible CO\({}_{2}\) and were inappropriate for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\). This shows less precise results if they are compared with the expert domain rules. Similar results were obtained from using [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s model, where all the fields are unsuitable for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR  
Figure 14: (**a**) Simultaneous boundary ellipse and (**b**) the Hotelling \(T^{2}\) chart for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR simultaneous screening model B.  
Figure 15: Immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR box plot and swarm plot: (**a**) oil saturation and (**b**) net thickness. but meet the requirements for miscible CO\({}_{2}\). Moreover, all fields are suitable for miscible and immiscible CO\({}_{2}\) in [PERSON] et al. 's screening model. However, it is worth noting here that [PERSON] et al. 's model utilizes the least screening parameters compared to the other models. Clearly, the results of the combination screening model match the actual conditions of the miscible CO\({}_{2}\) field and follows the rule of the expert domain. The combination screening model for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR was implemented in seven fields located in Trinidad, US, Turkey, and Brazil. These fields have been proven as successful in implementing immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR. The physical properties of the nine reservoir screening parameters are presented in Table 7. The screening parameter values were obtained from references and mean imputation was done for the missing data. In addition, the Yellig-Metcalfe correlation was used to determine the MMP. The results of implementing several screening models in the seven fields are shown in Table 8. The combination screening model recommended that the fields that are suitable for miscible CO\({}_{2}\) injection are also appropriate for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\) injection. However, a field that can be injected with immiscible CO\({}_{2}\) is not necessarily a field that can be injected with miscible CO\({}_{2}\). The results of implementing this combination screening method followed the rules of the expert domain. Differences are notable when these results are compared to those of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11], [PERSON] et al. [5], and [PERSON] et al. 's [10] screening methods. Their results showed that the reservoirs in the Bayou Sale and West Hasting fields are suitable for miscible CO\({}_{2}\) injection but not for immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR. As shown by the table, in reality, the fields have successfully implemented immiscible CO\({}_{2}\)-EOR.