MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483957914 · doi:10.1306/13171231st593373

An Overview of CO 2-ECBM and Sequestration in Coal Seams

2009· article· en· W1483957914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott R. Reeves

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooks · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationCoal miningCoalbed methaneCoalEnhanced oil recoveryMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsGeologyEngineeringWaste managementCarbon dioxideEconomicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carbon dioxide (CO 2) sequestration in coal seams represents one (of only two) geological sequestration option that has the potential to yield a value-adding byproduct (enhanced coalbed methane [ECBM] recovery) to mitigate sequestration costs (the other being enhanced oil recovery [EOR]). Although the global pervasiveness of coal seams and their substantial adsorption capacity for CO 2would suggest they represent a significant sequestration opportunity, the infancy of the technology as well as concerns over future coal minability has tempered sequestration capacity estimates. These two issues, an incomplete understanding of the interactions between CO 2and coal (and the implications that derive therefrom, such as knowing what are the most appropriate geological environments for sequestration, what are the best well development strategies, how should wells be operated, etc.) and the potential future minability of coal (i.e., what exactly is a deep, unminable coal that will not be developed at some future date), represent the major obstacles to widespread acceptance of coal seams as a viable carbon sequestration option. The largest CO 2-ECBM field test was performed by Burlington Resources (now ConocoPhillips) at the Allison unit in the San Juan Basin from 1995 to 2001. In this pilot test, approximately 336,000 t of CO 2was injected into four wells completed in the Fruitland coal. Improvement in ECBM recovery was predicted, and the ability of the coal to adsorb and retain CO 2was demonstrated. Smaller two-well and single-well tests have also been performed in Poland, Japan, Canada, and China. These are primarily government-funded demonstration projects with the primary objective of testing carbon sequestration technology. Additional field tests with similar objectives are also currently (as of this writing) in the planning stages as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership program. Economic analysis suggests that the CO 2-ECBM process can be profitable in some cases. Besides the obvious importance of infrastructure costs and energy prices to economic performance, a key technical factor is the ability to maintain high CO 2injection rates into the coal seams, which is a challenge because CO 2tends to swell coal, thus reducing permeability and injectivity. Overcoming this challenge, via the identification of the most favorable reservoir environments, the best project development strategies, appropriate operating practices, etc., represents a critical milestone toward the widespread acceptance of the technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooksSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207