Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal vs. Gas Composition and Pressure
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal Vs. Gas Composition and Pressure Matthew J. Mavor; Matthew J. Mavor Tesseract Corp. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar William D. Gunter William D. Gunter Alberta Research Council Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 2004. Paper Number: SPE-90255-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/90255-MS Published: September 26 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Mavor, Matthew J., and William D. Gunter. "Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal Vs. Gas Composition and Pressure." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/90255-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search Abstract We have been investigating sequestration of atmospheric pollutants by injection into coal seams while at the same time enhancing hydrocarbon productivity by displacement of methane by the pollutants. During the course of our field measurements, we have been using single well injection, soak, and production tests to collect data required to understand and predict enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery potential and sequestration capacity. We found that changing the composition of the gas sorbed into the coal changes the porosity and permeability of the coal natural fracture system due to gas content changes, which cause matrix swelling or shrinkage due to relative adsorption of different gases.We collected sufficient information to develop a method for predicting the permeability and porosity of a coal bed as a function of the secondary porosity system (SPS) pressure and the gas content and composition of the primary porosity system (PPS). The method uses data from injection/falloff tests using water and/or a weaker adsorbing gas (WAG) than CH4 and a stronger adsorbing gas (SAG) than CH4. Estimates of effective permeability to gas and water obtained from these tests are used with an iterative computation procedure subject to constraints to solve for equivalent SPS porosity and absolute permeability at atmospheric pressure.Once calibrated, the model can be used to predict a coal bed's permeability and porosity as a function of injection pressure and injected fluid composition that in turn are used to predict injection performance. The model is applicable to production forecasts to account for SPS permeability and porosity changes as reservoir pressure declines with changes in gas composition.This paper describes the new model and discusses well test procedures to obtain the data required for model calibration. Also included are coal property estimates resulting from Alberta Medicine River (Manville) coal core and test data and an example model calibration. Keywords: water saturation, drillstem testing, effective permeability, enhanced recovery, drillstem/well testing, composition, injection, porosity ratio, coal bed methane, sp porosity Subjects: Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Formation Evaluation & Management, Unconventional and Complex Reservoirs, Drillstem/well testing, Coal seam gas Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle