Abstract
The authors regret < Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 16 and 17 in this original article are not correct. The correct ones are as follows respectively: [Figure presented] Fig. 14. Norm of the fluid velocity distribution and pressure distribution at 1000 days. [Figure presented] Fig. 15. Comparison of the pressure distributions between different scenarios at 1000 days: (a) Scenario 1; (b) Scenario 2; (c) Scenario 3; (d) Scenario 4; (e) Scenario 5. [Figure presented] Fig. 16. Comparison of oil rate between simulation scenarios. [Figure presented] Fig. 17. The comparison of production index fold of increase between simulation scenarios with and without TPG. >. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Article number | 123092 |
Journal | Energy |
Volume | 243 |
DOIs |
|
State | Published - Mar 15 2022 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Building and Construction
- Modeling and Simulation
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
- Fuel Technology
- Energy Engineering and Power Technology
- Pollution
- General Energy
- Mechanical Engineering
- Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering