MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232052805 · doi:10.2172/889511

CO2 Sequestration Potential of Texas Low-Rank Coals

2006· report· en· W4232052805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Duane A. McVay, Walter B. Ayers, Jerry L. Jensen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationCoalbed methaneMethaneCoalCoal miningEnvironmental scienceCoal rankCarbon dioxideMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyWaste managementEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this project are to evaluate the feasibility of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) sequestration in Texas low-rank coals and to determine the potential for enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery as an added benefit of sequestration. The main objectives for this reporting period were to (1) estimate the potential for CO{sub 2} sequestration in, and methane production from, low-rank coals of the Lower Calvert Bluff Formation of the Wilcox Group in the east-central Texas region, (2) quantify uncertainty associated with these estimates, (3) conduct reservoir and economic analyses of CO{sub 2} sequestration and ECBM production using horizontal wells, and (4) compare the results with those obtained from previous studies of vertical wells. To estimate the total volumes of CO{sub 2} that may be sequestered in, and total volumes of methane that can be produced from, the Wilcox Group low-rank coals in east-central Texas, we used data provided by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, data obtained during this research, and results of probabilistic simulation modeling studies we conducted. For the analysis, we applied our base-case coal seam characteristics to a 2,930-mi{sup 2} (1,875,200-ac) area where Calvert Bluff coal seams range between 4,000 and 6,200 ft deep. Results of the probabilistic analysis indicate that potential CO{sub 2} sequestration capacity of the coals ranges between 27.2 and 49.2 Tcf (1.57 and 2.69 billion tons), with a mean value of 38 Tcf (2.2 billion tons), assuming a 72.4% injection efficiency. Estimates of recoverable methane resources, assuming a 71.3% recovery factor, range between 6.3 and 13.6 Tcf, with a mean of 9.8 Tcf. As part of the technology transfer for this project, we presented the paper SPE 100584 at the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on May 15-18, 2006. Also, we submitted an abstract to be considered for inclusion in a special volume dedicated to CO{sub 2} sequestration in geologic media, which is planned for publication by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207