MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972404413 · doi:10.2118/159558-ms

Effect of Multicomponent Adsorption/Desorption Behavior on Gas-In-Place (GIP) Calculations and Estimation of Free and Adsorbed CH4 and CO2 in Shale Gas Systems

2012· article· en· W1972404413 on OpenAlexaff
Mita Das, Rene Jonk, Rachel T. Schelble

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdsorptionSorptionDesorptionLangmuir adsorption modelOil shaleComponent (thermodynamics)LangmuirPetroleum engineeringSorption isothermShale gasThermodynamicsEnvironmental scienceChemical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryGeologyPhysical chemistryPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unconventional shale gas resources have become a major component of the energy mix in North America, with future growth projected globally. The nature of storage and transport of hydrocarbon gas are not yet fully understood in these plays. Adsorption in gas shales is expressed by the Langmuir isotherm, which is the capacity of the rock to adsorb gas at any given temperature. The Langmuir isotherm is generally measured in the laboratory with crushed rock samples. In the presence of CO2 with CH4 in the free gas state, the desorption behavior and measurement becomes more complex. There are significant differences in sorption experimental procedures and results reported by different vendors. This study addresses the challenges in data variability in sorption measurement, the differences in EUR and GIP calculations, including existing limitations on adsorption measurement and reporting techniques. The results and implications of round- robin experiments with four different samples across four vendor laboratories are shown with multi-component adsorption isotherm analysis. The limitations and variations based on vendor data measurement techniques for accurately calculating GIP and EUR in the case of multi-component adsorption are discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207