MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387235605 · doi:10.2118/216987-ms

Analysis of the Japanese Depleted Gas Fields’ Prospect for Underground Hydrogen Storage

2023· article· en· W4387235605 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Safari, Y. Sugai, Mohammad Sarmadivaleh, Motonao Imai, Hadi Esfandyari, Manouchehr Haghighi, Mojtaba Moradi, Abbas Zeinijahromi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringNatural gas fieldEnvironmental scienceWork (physics)Analytic hierarchy processTrap (plumbing)EngineeringEnvironmental engineeringNatural gasOperations researchWaste managementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A method for reducing power peak is to store hydrogen (H2) underground in depleted gas reservoirs (hereafter UHS). In contrast to alternative solutions, like salt caverns or aquifers, the availability of depleted gas reservoirs gives a greater storage capacity. But choosing the right gas field for the UHS and carrying it out are tricky. As a result, the goal of this work is to characterize the UHS in the chosen field and rank Japanese gas fields for it. To begin with, we ranked and screened potential H2 storage locations in Japan using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The best locations for UHS, according to our calculations using the AHP approach, are Sekihara, Kumoide, Katakai, Nakajo, Kubiki, Shiunji, Iwafune-oki (gas), and Minami-Nagaoka. These fields’ high flow capacity, depth, current reservoir pressure, and dip angle are the causes of their elevated position. Then, based on a volumetric reservoir, we studied the H2 injection, storage, and withdrawal capacity at the chosen site in the Niigata Prefecture using the CMG reservoir simulator. For the first time in Japan, this work offers a framework for evaluating and ranking potential depleted gas reservoirs as a UHS option. It also includes a reservoir simulation study to comprehend the impact of various parameters such as hysteresis trapping, number of injection and withdrawal cycles, and type of cushion gas on the efficiency of H2 storage and withdrawal in a volumetric gas reservoir.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207