MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989887731 · doi:10.2118/131791-ms

Coalbed Methane: Current Evaluation Methods, Future Technical Challenges

2010· article· en· W1989887731 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalbed methanePetroleum engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)CoalHydraulic fracturingRelative permeabilityEnvironmental scienceMethaneGeologyNatural gasReservoir simulationSaturation (graph theory)Coal miningEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringWaste managementPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coalbed methane (CBM) produced from subsurface coal deposits, has been produced commercially now for over 30 years in North America, and relatively recently in Australia, China and India. Historical challenges to predicting CBM well performance and long-term production have included: accurate estimation of gas-in-place (including quantification of in-situ adsorbed gas storage); estimation of initial fluid saturations (in saturated reservoirs) and mobile-water-in-place, estimation of the degree of under-saturation (undersaturated coals produce mainly water above desorption pressure); estimation of initial absolute permeability (system); selection of appropriate relative permeability curves; estimation of absolute permeability changes as a function of depletion; prediction of produced gas composition changes as a function of depletion; accounting for multi-layer behavior, and accurate prediction of cavity or hydraulic fracture properties. These challenges have primarily been a result of the unique reservoir properties of CBM. Much progress has been made in the past decade to evaluate fundamental properties of coal reservoirs, but there is still work to be done to obtain accurate estimates of some basic reservoir properties. In recent years, horizontal wells and more complex well architectures and stimulation methodologies have been implemented to improve recovery of CBM. These more complex development options bring with them a new set of challenges for operators producing CBM. The exploitation of more geologically-complex coal with poorer reservoir quality will necessitate new and inventive ways to develop the existing natural gas resources and possibly combine this with new methods to extract energy from the coal in-situ. Development planning in these scenarios will become increasingly complex as will evaluation methods. The purpose of the current work is to review the state-of-the-art in CBM reservoir property and stimulation efficiency evaluation and speculate on possible CBM development scenarios for the future and the technical challenges they will bring. Current and future work required to meet these challenges will be discussed in the hope that industry, academia, and government bodies alike will be proactive in the development of solutions that will make future CBM recovery efficient, economic, and environmentally friendly.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207