MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966798352 · doi:10.2118/197045-pa

On the Negative Excess Isotherms for Methane Adsorption at High Pressure: Modeling and Experiment

2019· article· en· W2966798352 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Li, Keliu Wu, Zhangxin Chen, Kun Wang, Jia Luo, Jinze Xu, Ran Li, Renjie Yu, Xiangfang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdsorptionChemistryMethaneVolume (thermodynamics)ThermodynamicsPorosityVoid (composites)HeliumWork (physics)ChromatographyMaterials sciencePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary An excess adsorption amount obtained in experiments is always determined by mass balance with a void volume measured by helium (He) –expansion tests. However, He, with a small kinetic diameter, can penetrate into narrow pores in porous media that are inaccessible to adsorbate gases [e.g., methane (CH4)]. Thus, the actual accessible volume for a specific adsorbate is always overestimated by an He–based void volume; such overestimation directly leads to errors in the determination of excess isotherms in the laboratory, such as “negative isotherms” for gas adsorption at high pressures, which further affects an accurate description of total gas in place (GIP) for shale–gas reservoirs. In this work, the mass balance for determining the adsorbed amount is rewritten, and two particular concepts, an “apparent excess adsorption” and an “actual excess adsorption,” are considered. Apparent adsorption is directly determined by an He–based volume, corresponding to the traditional treatment in experimental conditions, whereas actual adsorption is determined by an adsorbate–accessible volume, where pore–wall potential is always nonpositive (i.e., an attractive molecule/pore–wall interaction). Results show the following: The apparent excess isotherm determined by the He–based volume gradually becomes negative at high pressures, but the actual one determined by the adsorbate–accessible volume always remains positive.The negative adsorption phenomenon in the apparent excess isotherm is a result of the overestimation in the adsorbate–accessible volume, and a larger overestimation leads to an earlier appearance of this negative adsorption.The positive amount in the actual excess isotherm indicates that the adsorbed phase is always denser than the bulk gas because of the molecule/pore–wall attraction aiding the compression of the adsorbed molecules. Practically, an overestimation in pore volume (PV) is only 3.74% for our studied sample, but it leads to an underestimation reaching up to 22.1% in the actual excess amount at geologic conditions (i.e., approximately 47 MPa and approximately 384 K). Such an overestimation in PV also underestimates the proportions of the adsorbed–gas amount to the free–gas amount and to the total GIP. Therefore, our present work underlines the importance of a void volume in the determination of adsorption isotherms; moreover, we establish a path for a more–accurate evaluation of gas storage in geologic shale reservoirs with high pressure.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207