MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2147080235 · doi:10.2118/115405-ms

A New Regression-Based Method for Accurate Measurement of Coal and Shale Gas Content

2008· article· en· W2147080235 on OpenAlexaff
E. Shtepani, Leo A. Noll, L. W. Elrod, P. M. Jacobs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesorptionVolume (thermodynamics)ChemistryAdsorptionCoalMethaneAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ExtrapolationEnvironmental scienceMineralogyEnvironmental chemistryThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas content and storage capacity are the key parameters for determination of the gas resources and reserves in unconventional reservoirs. These parameters must be obtained from laboratory experiments in the core samples such as desorption canister tests and adsorption isotherm experiments. Desorption canister testing is performed to determine the total adsorbed gas content, gas composition and the total desorption time. Adsorption isotherm experiments are conducted to determine the gas storage capacity with pressure and for CO2 sequestration purposes. Other analyses of coals include proximate analysis and bulk density measurements of all samples. Shales are commonly analyzed for total organic carbon in lieu of proximate analysis. The gas content is estimated by placing selected freshly cut reservoir samples in air tight sealed canisters and measuring desorbed gas volume as a function of time at atmospheric conditions. Total gas content is the summation of three components: "lost gas", desorbed gas, and "residual gas". "Lost gas" is the volume of the gas that desorbs from the sample during the recovery process at wellsite, before the core sample can be sealed in a desorption canister. "Residual gas" is the gas that remains sorbed on the sample at the completion of the canister desorption test. A disadvantage of this procedure is the estimation of "lost gas". The volume of the "lost gas" is usually estimated by extrapolation of desorbed data to time zero using linear and/or polynomial curve-fit to the plot of cumulative desorbed gas versus square root of time. The differences between both methods can become more pronounced especially in high gas content reservoirs. In this paper a new method, which is based on nonlinear regression of measured gas content, is presented. This technique offers an accurate estimation of lost gas which coupled with sorption isotherm impacts the calculation of gas in place, the recoverable reserve and production profiles.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→