Measurement of Relative Permeability of Coal: Approaches and Limitations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A number of laboratory studies on coalbed methane (CBM) have provided data for the relative permeability of coal to gas and water, which are needed to analyze CBM reservoirs, particularly in numerical simulation. The relative permeability curves of coal to gas and water are determined using the two methods used in the petroleum reservoir engineering, namely, the steady or unsteady state displacement methods. In most cases, the unsteady state displacement method is used because this method is relatively fast to carry out. In this method, the non-wetting fluid is displaced by the wetting fluid, and the effluent production and pressure history are used to back out the relative permeability of coal to gas and water. One of the problems encountered in the displacement methods is the question of coal wettability. Many researchers studying this area have considered that coal is water-wet. However, it is a well-known fact that a large amount as much as 95% of methane is adsorbed on the internal surface of coal matrix. Therefore, coal could be regarded at least as initially gas-wet. The wettability of coal will depend on the flow characteristics of coal, that is, whether methane flows in the matrix. This paper investigates a number of wettability of coal scenarios and discusses the approaches used by various investigators, for instance, pre-heating the coal sample before any testing, and using a non-adsorbable gas, pointing out their limitations from the viewpoint of CBM reservoir simulation. The likely dependence of relative permeability of coal on flow pressure is also addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it