Technical and economic factors in applying the enhanced coalbed methane recovery process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geological sequestration of CO2 is a technically feasible and potentially economic option for significantly and safely reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with CO2 injection already practiced in Canada and the USA to enhance crude oil production. The Enhanced Coalbed Methane (ECBM) process is seen as the next most economical sequestration options. The authors estimate an incremental methane recovery factor from 20% to 50%, depending on coal rank and seam depth. Others have estimated the potential to increase worldwide CBM production, utilising ECBM, by 18 Trillion cubic meters, while simultaneously sequestering 345 Giga tonnes of CO2. This paper presents technical and economic factors to consider for developing a commercial ECBM project. Technical factors include: geostructural and hydrogeological issues, geochemical reactions, stressed and competitive sorption, counter-diffusion, effective and relative 4-D coal permeability and methane recovery levels. Key economic factors are injectant acquisition price, sale price of methane and the level of carbon credits.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".