MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784661897 · doi:10.11575/prism/5213

A Simulation Study on Enhanced Gas Recovery from Unconventional Resources (Coal Bed Methane)

2017· dissertation· en· W2784661897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vasavi Nandini Alenthwar

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethanePetroleum engineeringCoalEnhanced coal bed methane recoveryEnvironmental scienceWaste managementUnconventional oilEngineeringChemistryCoal miningFossil fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past 20 years of research on CBM reserves, it has been found that CBM resources as unconventional are highly potential for natural gas production and used as geological sinks for CO2 storage where ECBMR by CO2 injection evolved as a new strategy of development. It has been proven that affinity of CO2, CH4, and N2 coal is in the ratio of 4:2:1. The main drawback of enhanced coal bed methane recovery by CO2 injection found to be the reduction of coal permeability due to matrix swelling effects and it has been found that, N2 gas has the capacity to reduce the partial pressure of CH4 which helps in quick desorption of CH4 and early production. Apart from this, the production of pure CO2 gas in surface facilities for sequestration is a costly process. The different behavior of CO2 and N2 towards coal making it as a separation medium which cuts the surface separation cost. The produced gas is a mixture of CH4 and N2 and separation units are required to increase the quality of CH4 gas to pipeline specification and recent economic studies says that this cost is less than the cost of CO2 generation. But the question is what exact compositions of flue gas are reliable to obtain the benefit of enhancing gas recovery? Therefore, the focus of this thesis is to develop an approach to evaluate the potential of CBM resources as a sink for CO2, and to assess how effective is the recovery of the CH4 gas trapped in coal beds using flue gas (CO2 and N2) injection. In finding so, first, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty assessment studies have been conducted on 11 hypothetical coal bed simulation models that are developed based on different well completion methods and in each model (M-5 to M-11) flue gas (with normalized compositions CO2 – 0.99, N2- 0.01) is injected. The results derived from the study will help the design of a reliable operating strategy in implementing the CO2 sequestration and enhanced CBM recovery using flue gas injection in deep coal zones in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, Canada and elsewhere.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207