MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991329478 · doi:10.2118/127073-pa

CO2 Injection Performance in the Fruitland Coal Fairway, San Juan Basin: Results of a Field Pilot

2011· article· en· W1991329478 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Energy Technology LaboratoryConocoPhillipsU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCaprockGeologyCanyonCoal miningOil shalePetroleum engineeringCoalbed methaneMining engineeringDrillingCoalGeomorphologyEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Pump Canyon CO2-enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM)/ sequestration demonstration in New Mexico has the primary objective of demonstrating the feasibility of CO2 sequestration in deep, unmineable coal seams through a small-scale geologic sequestration pilot. This project is not the first of its kind; several small- or large-scale pilots were already conducted previously in the United States [Allison Unit (Reeves et al. 2003) in the San Juan, Appalachian, and Warrior basins] as well as internationally [the Recopol (Reeves and Oudinot 2002) project in Poland, and the Yubari project in Japan, Canada, and Australia]. Additional pilots are currently under way. At the project site, a new CO2-injection well was drilled within an existing pattern of coalbed-methane-production wells. Primarily operated by ConocoPhillips, these wells produce from the Late Cretaceous Fruitland coals. CO2 injection into these coal seams was initiated in late July 2008 and ceased in August 2009. A variety of monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) methods were employed to track the movement of the CO2 in order to determine the occurrence of leakage. Within the injection well, MVA methods included continuous measurement of injection volumes, pressures, and temperatures. The offset production wells sampled gas-production rates, pressures, and gas composition through CO2 sensors, tracers in the injected CO2, time-lapse vertical seismic profiling, and surface tiltmeter arrays. A detailed study of the overlying Kirtland shale was also conducted to investigate the integrity of this primary caprock. This information was used to develop a detailed geologic characterization and reservoir model that has been used to further understand the behavior of this reservoir. The CO2-injection pilot has ended with no significant CO2 buildup occurring in the offset production wells. However, a small but steady increase in CO2 and N2 at two of the offset wells may have been an indication of imminent breakthrough. More recent gas samples are, however, showing a decrease in CO2 and N2 content at those wells. This paper describes the project, covering the regulatory process and injection-well construction, the different techniques used to monitor for CO2 leakage, and the results of the modeling work.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.174 · 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