Gas Recovery Through the Injection of Carbon Dioxide or Concentrated Flue Gas in a Natural Gas Hydrate Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Because CO2 hydrate is stable at pressures lower than those required to stabilize hydrates of CH4 when compared at the same temperature the injection of CO2 into gas hydrate reservoirs was proposed a while ago as a method to recover methane. The added advantage of such a technology is the simultaneous sequestering/storage of CO2 captured from fossil fuel power plants or other significant point sources of CO2. Recent reviews on the subject have provided an account of the laboratory and theoretical work on this topic. The reviews highlighted the need to further elucidate the dynamics of the exchange process and provide information needed for the design of industrial scale facilities. In this work, the kinetics of the CO2/CH4 exchange process are investigated in a 5.3 L laboratory crystallizer (reservoir) equipped with ahorizontal injection tube with 24 exits into the packed bed of silica sand particles. Preliminary experiments conducted using this apparatus and also with a high pressure calorimeter indicate that in lab experiments there is some residual water and that the extent of the exchange process is limited. Even if the CH4 recovery is optimized there is aneed for a CH4/CO2 separation plant to enable a complete cyclic sequence of CO2 capture, injection and CH4 recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".