Characterization of Methane Excess and Absolute Adsorption in Various Clay Nanopores from Molecular Simulation
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
In this work, we use grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulation to study methane adsorption in various clay nanopores and analyze different approaches to characterize the absolute adsorption. As an important constituent of shale, clay minerals can have significant amount of nanopores, which greatly contribute to the gas-in-place in shale. In previous works, absolute adsorption is often calculated from the excess adsorption and bulk liquid phase density of absorbate. We find that methane adsorbed phase density keeps increasing with pressure up to 80 MPa. Even with updated adsorbed phase density from GCMC, there is a significant error in absolute adsorption calculation. Thus, we propose to use the excess adsorption and adsorbed phase volume to calculate absolute adsorption and reduce the discrepancy to less than 3% at high pressure conditions. We also find that the supercritical Dubinin-Radushkevich (SDR) fitting method which is commonly used in experiments to convert the excess adsorption to absolute adsorption may not have a solid physical foundation for methane adsorption. The methane excess and absolute adsorptions per specific surface area are similar for different clay minerals in line with previous experimental data. In mesopores, the excess and absolute adsorptions per specific surface area become insensitive to pore size. Our work should provide important fundamental understandings and insights into accurate estimation of gas-in-place in shale reservoirs.
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