MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1611060049 · doi:10.1115/1.2956979

Modeling of CO2-Hydrate Formation in Geological Reservoirs by Injection of CO2 Gas

2008· article· en· W1611060049 on OpenAlex
M. Uddin, Dennis Coombe, Fred Wright

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClathrate hydrateCarbon sequestrationGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)HydrateNatural gasPetroleum engineeringPorosityReservoir engineeringReservoir simulationPetrologyCarbon dioxideGeotechnical engineeringChemistryPetroleum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuing concern about the impacts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on the global climate system provides an impetus for the development of methods for long-term disposal of CO2 produced by industrial and other activities. Investigations of the CO2-hydrate properties indicate the feasibility of geologic sequestration CO2 as gas hydrate and the possibility of coincident CO2 sequestration/CH4 production from natural gas hydrate reservoirs. Numerical studies can provide an integrated understanding of the process mechanisms in predicting the potential and economic viability of CO2 gas sequestration, especially when utilizing realistic geological reservoir characteristics in the models. This study numerically investigates possible sequestration of CO2 as a stable gas hydrate in various reservoir geological formations. As such, this paper extends the applicability of a previously developed model to more realistic and relevant reservoir scenarios. A unified gas hydrate model coupled with a thermal reservoir simulator (CMG STARS) was applied to simulate CO2-hydrate formation in four reservoir geological formations. These reservoirs can be described as follows. The first reservoir (Reservoir I) is similar to tight gas reservoir with mean porosity 0.25 and mean absolute permeability 10mD. The second reservoir (Reservoir II) is similar to a conventional sandstone reservoir with mean porosity 0.25 and mean permeability 20mD. The third reservoir (Reservoir III) is similar to hydrate-free Mallik silt with mean porosity 0.30 and mean permeability 100mD. The fourth reservoir (Reservoir IV) is similar to hydrate-free Mallik sand with mean porosity 0.35 and mean permeability 1000mD. The Mallik gas hydrate bearing formation itself can be described as several layers of variable thickness with permeability variations from 1mDto1000mD, and is addressed as a separate part of this study. This paper describes numerical methodology, model input data selection, and reservoir simulation results, including an enhancement to model the effects of ice formation and decay. The numerical investigation shows that the gas hydrate model effectively captures the spatial and temporal dynamics of CO2-hydrate formation in geological reservoirs by injection of CO2 gas. Practical limitations to CO2-hydrate formation by gas injection are identified and potential improvements to the process are suggested.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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