EME 580: INTEGRATIVE DESIGN OF ENERGY & MINERAL ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

Objective: To “collaboratively integrate … knowledge and experiences in addressing common problems”.

Topics: “[P]roduction, processing and utilization of fossil and renewable energy and the associated environmental, health and safety, and business management issues”.

Methodology: “[U]tilize … engineering and business principles to optimally recover, process and utilize conventional and unconventional energy in an environmentally friendly, safe and economical manner… A quantitative approach, including mechanistic, thermodynamic, fluid flow, and kinetic analysis of proposed options must be considered, together with a preliminary economic analysis”.

Spring 2018 syllabus (Note this update!)

Exercise #1. Analysis of a ‘classic’ (or at least highly cited) paper:
(a) Osborn et al., “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”, PNAS, 108 (20), 8172-6 (2011).
-Is “microbial methanogenesis” vs. ‘thermogenic’ methane the key argument (Figure 4)?
-Agree that Ref. 14 is (among) the most important one(s)? And what about Ref. 15?
-Have plots similar to Figure 4A (and/or Figure 4B) been published before and after the paper by Osborn et al. (2011)? Is there agreement in the literature about the ‘boundaries’ between biogenic and thermogenic methane?
-Does the presence of biogenic methane (and absence of thermogenic methane) ‘automatically’ mean that its source is not hydraulic fracturing? (Relationship between ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ groundwater sources?)
-Here is an example of an annotated (progressively ‘digested’) paper. (Can see comments/annotations?)
-Which conclusions stem from which graphs?
-Can verify the accuracy/reliability of at least one quantitative aspect in a key figure?
-Example(s) of cited paper(s) that support key statements/arguments?
-Example(s) of citing paper(s) that endorses/questions some of the conclusions (especially those that are contained in figures/tables, but may not be highlighted)?
[See here a (convincing?) argument about integrity-related issues.]
Example(s) of discussion of key figures/tables: First, what does the reader see? And only then, what do the authors say?

Quiz #1: Here is the summary of results… and here is my version of the solution.

(b) The true story of the Hubbert curve: giving credit where credit is due!
-Does the Wikipedia summary agree with the record available in the Web of Knowledge?
…

Assignment #1 (due midnight January 28): deposit into your team’s Canvas drop box (a) a Word file containing the (preliminary) title of your project, and (b) copies of (i) a typical media report or a patent and (ii) a typical technological paper, so that we can begin to analyze them in class.

The ten commandments (of a researcher): first approximation! Note that the methodology of writing a paper, or a thesis, or a report (as for this class) is ALWAYS essentially the same.

___________________________

Team #1 (Mohammad, mba23; Abdulla, asa5350; Livio, lzs249).

Title: “Artificial neural networks in reservoir chemical EOR implementation”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“An artificial neural network model for predicting the recovery performance of surfactant polymer floods”, M M Al-Dousari and A A Garrouch, J Petr Sci Eng (2013), 109, 51-62.
-What does “surfactant polymer flood” (in the title) really mean? (Is the flooding carried out with a polymer surfactant? Or with both a polymer and a surfactant? If the latter, why are both needed? And should then there be a hyphen in the title, “…surfactant-polymer…”?)
-Is the input of “18 dimensionless groups” a reasonable one? Why 18? Do any (or most?) of these groups have physical significance? For example, do the authors explain, or provide a reference for, the “hidden layers”?
-What is the meaning of breakthrough time? (What breaks through what?) And do the authors justify the selection of their PVI values (0.75, 1.5 and 2.25)?
-The claim to fame of ANN is “adaptive learning”… Right? Any example(s) included in this paper? And is there any concrete evidence in this paper that such a model is indeed “an adequate alternative [to] the time-consuming and expensive reservoir simulators”? For example, do the authors offer any comments regarding the (widely variable?) correlation coefficients in Figures 8-15? If not, what criterion do they use to claim “reliable estimates of oil recovery for an SP flood” (see Conclusions)?

Comments after presentation #1:

-Is the 1996 study by Hagan (and coworkers?) the pioneering (or breakthrough) report in this field?
-In ANN models, as in all modeling efforts, it is very important to distinguish carefully between ‘predicting’ and reproducing experimental data; do the studies you reviewed so far make it easy to make this distinction?
-Is the number of “hidden layers” one of the important adjustable parameters in ANN models? Does it have a physical significance?
-Is the applicability of ANN more ‘popular’ in ‘chemical’ EOR than in other EOR methods? And what exactly is chemical in “chemical EOR”?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery from Fractured, Oil-Wet, Carbonate Formations”, G Hirasaki and D L Zhang, SPE Journal, 151-162 (June 2004).

-Is there an equation that describes the process of (spontaneous) imbibition (of oil by water or vice versa)? If yes, and when applied to oil recovery, does it contain any adjustable parameters?
-Is the zeta potential of calcite shown in Figure 7 in agreement with (many?) other studies of this ubiquitous compound? Do the authors cite the relevant (and representative?) literature? And is their conclusion #2 then just a confirmation of a well known fact?
-Does the discussion of Figure 7 meet the ultimate challenge: ‘squeezing’ the maximum quantity of ‘juice’ without insulting the intelligence of the (informed) reader, while at the same time not overestimating the knowledge of the (general) reader!
-Any relationship between the results in Figure 7 and those of adsorption measurements (Figures 24 and 25)? Discussed/understood by the authors? Understandable?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Is the assumption that silica has a negative charge and clay has a positive charge a reasonable or often distorting simplification? Who has discussed and/or proposed this and how convincing is the evidence?

-How exactly is polymer flooding related to CEOR? Which conformation type (i.e., viscoelastic behavior) favors a decrease in viscosity?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“Polymer-Flooding Economics, From Pilot to Field Implementation”, M Sieberer et al., SPE EconManag, July 2017, 51-60.

-Is there something obviously ‘lopsided’ in the list of references?
-Do the authors make meaningful economic comparisons with water flooding? And do they explain why, for example, instead of using polymer flooding in the same field after water flooding, it is not (economically) advantageous to use water flooding in another, less depleted field? Do they compare the relevant $/ton recovered oil? Does anyone else do that (e.g., in the cited or citing papers)?


Comments after final presentation:
-Which methodology is more important or challenging, the ‘forward’ (using reservoir properties) or the ‘reverse’ (using production rates)?
-Is there information/discussion in the literature about the ASP selection or optimization process based on their relative adsorption isotherms?

Team #2 (Jonathan, jun94; Kien, kht8; Zhicheng, zxw161).

Preliminary title: “Production Data Analysis of Natural Gas Reservoirs: Recent Analytical Approaches”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Rigorous and explicit determination of reserves and hyperbolic exponents in gas-well decline analysis”, T N Stumpf and L F Ayala, SPE Journal, 1843-57 (October 2016).
-Does the area under the curve in Figure 3 represent the ‘reserves’ mentioned in the title? How is such a curve related to the Hubbert curve, if at all?
-And why “exponents” in the title? Are there more than one? See Conclusion #5… What evidence do the authors provide for “a reduced number of degrees of freedom”?
-Among the 49 equations in the paper, which one(s) is (are) the most important? For example, which one(s) define(s) the “strength of the coupling between [the] viscosity-compressibility product and pressure depletion”?
-In case studies 1-6 the authors show different relationships between the hyperbolic exponent and the average value of alpha. Do they discuss them and therefore explain (or justify?) their Conclusion #4?

Comments after presentation #1:

-How does ‘modern’ fluid dynamics denote/analyze/classify “Darcy’s law” and the “Klinkenberg effect”?
-Why is a hyperbolic decline curve most commonly observed? And can b take a value that is greater than 1.0? If yes, does this have a physical meaning?
-Is the hyperbolic window a significant fraction of the total decline curve?
-Is SG=0.55 a typical value? (Over what range can it vary and why?) Is it simply 16/29? If yes, why is it necessary to specify it as a parameter?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Density-Based Decline Performance Analysis of Natural Gas Reservoirs Using a Universal Type Curve”, L F Ayala H and P Ye, J Energy Res Technol (December 2013), 135, 042701.
-Is the order of authorship of this paper unusual? Does it have a simple explanation (and justification)?

-What is a “type curve”? And is it a concept borrowed from another field or unique to PNGE? What makes it a ‘type’ curve (as opposed to, say, a typical curve)? And on the basis of which argument can it become ‘universal’?
-Does Figure 1a make sense? Can you verify it? (Is the information in Ref. 23 necessary?) Does it make sense that ideal gas behavior is observed NOT at low pressures, but at pressures that are intermediate between ‘moderate’ and ‘high’?
-Are type-curve matches in the various case studies achieved using very different values for the reservoir and fluid properties? Do the authors discuss these differences? And are these differences reasonable (and understood)?
-Is it easy to identify at least one (convincing?) example in support of the conclusion that the “proposed single-line type curve…reliably estimate[s] fluids in place”?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Are there simulation examples that show relatively poor OGIP estimation when the hyperbolic window is relatively narrow?
-Is it easy to identify the adjustable parameters in PDA vs. RTA, and which method has the advantage with respect to this criterion of model usefulness?

-Is the physical significance of “rate-normalized pseudo-pressure” and “material-balance pseudo-time” reasonably clear (compare to, say, the Reynolds number)? Do the authors who use them even make an attempt to provide an explanation, or at least a justification for their introduction?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play”, Report by T Considine et al., PSU, 2009.
-Readily available? Prepared for whom?
-What is the main argument against passing the tax on to the consumers? Is it convincing? (Is there a table or a graph that supports it?)
-How has ‘posterity’ treated this report? Updates available? And citing papers? Tax exists? At what level? Effect on drilling activity? (Anything close to 30% decrease?) And on production?
-Any peer-reviewed cited papers whose fate can be followed more easily?


Comments after final presentation:
-Reserves (in the USA?) really (only?) 332x10^12 cuft? Including shale gas?
-Shouldn’t the literature (and you?) be more critical about the model validation procedures? Apart from ‘predicting’ reserves, should not the discussion focus on the selection (and adjustment?) of the key model parameters? Examples?

Here is Quiz #2.
(Responses: #1-95% True; #2-100% True; #3-100% True; #4-65% True.)

Here is Quiz #6.
(Responses: tbp.)
Here is Quiz #9.

___________________________________________________________________

Team #3 (Daulet, dus83; Ahmed, amn46; Brayam, bdv3).

Topic: “Coal-biomass co-firing in competitive electricity generation markets: equilibrium framework approach”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion consequences”, D A Tillman, Biomass and Bioenergy (2000), 19, 365-84.
-Is this a review paper? (Note the number of citing papers…) If yes, is it authoritative? Comprehensive? Critical?
-How many figures/tables are ‘originals’? Are those from previous studies ‘reproduced’ or ‘adapted’? And do they include studies from other R&D groups?
-Is the list of conclusions longer than that of “unresolved issues”?
-Is an explanation for NOx emissions reduction provided? Is it convincing? Is it based, at least in part, on arguments offered by others?

Comments after presentation #1:

-In projecting a reliable growth rate of, say, solar electricity (which presumably competes with co-firing), it is important to consider the recent past; based on this comparison, are the projections (typically used in co-firing models) realistic? And has the “renewables portfolio” really been “steadily increasing”?
-Is the (universally?) claimed advantage of reduced NOx emissions due simply to a lower combustion temperature or to some (well understood?) change in the combustion mechanism? If the latter, does this agree with the apparent dominance of separate biomass/coal ‘co-firing’?
-Is it surprising that only 5-10% of biomass use seems to be common in ‘co-firing’?
-What are the typical biomass transportation costs (in $/ton/mile)? Are they very different from those of coal transportation?
-Does co-firing make (techno-economic) sense only if relatively cheap biomass (residue) is used? In this sense, is the Midwest case (a)typical?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Use of a Predictive Model for the Impact of Cofiring Coal/Biomass Blends on Slagging and Fouling Propensity”, P Plaza et al., Energy Fuels (2009), 23, 3437-45.
-Is there a key cited reference that is closely related to the main conclusion(s)?
-Is there an important citing reference that supports or questions the main conclusion(s)?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Is the use of ‘big’ words such as ‘endogenous’ and “equilibrium framework” really justified? What would be an exogenous adoption and would it make sense? And is a kinetic framework more or less suitable for this analysis?
-The methodology section should describe how the information was collected and collated (see details elsewhere on this web site); what you propose to include should be distributed between the Intro and R&D sections.
-Is, say, “<5% cofiring” a misleading number? Should you not convert this to a percentage of biomass use/availability and make a point that 5% of a huge number (say, for generating 10 GW) is a reasonably large number as well?
-Are examples of use of sewage sludge or sawdust misleading when discussing MISO? No examples available for use of corn residue?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“Economics of co-firing coal and biomass: An application to Western Canada”, Energy Economics (2015), 48, 7-17.
-Application to Western Canada justified economically? And technologically? Selection of Western Canada made/makes sense?

Comments after final presentation:
-Is it not a (severe?) limitation of this approach to consider the % co-firing to be a constant (parameter)? Should it not be a variable that responds to variations in the carbon tax (or feed-in tariff)?
-A presumably important advantage of co-firing is a reduction in NOx emissions. Has this trend been discussed (questioned or confirmed?) in the more recent literature?

_____________________________

Team #4 (Thomas, tjg5335; Nathan, nfg5008; Bronson, bpf5082).

Preliminary topic: “How the mining industry would respond to future energy outlooks”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Considerations of resource availability in technology development strategies: The case study of photovoltaics”, A Zuser and H Rechberger, Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2011), 56, 56-65.
-Only one conclusion? (And ‘extends’??) Does it address what was ‘promised’ in the title?
-Is the formula (in the Appendix) novel? Is it explained/justified?
-Is the availability of silver really more important than that of (many?) other resources? Any figure(s)/table(s) addressing this (central?) issue?
-Sufficient information provided about resources that might make a greater contribution to 1 TW-level photovoltaics industry (e.g., gallium, tellurium, indium, perovskites)?

Comments after presentation #1:

-In assessing the reserves of the metals that might constrain the growth of photovoltaics, is it not important to consider the (widely varying?) efficiencies of metal recovery from their ores?
-How exactly are the ‘unsubsidized’ LCOE numbers obtained, especially for the fossil fuels? Are the assumptions that go into such calculations explicitly stated, say, by Lazard (2017)?
-In one of your slides that lists the assumptions, you have “1000 W/m²”. Understood? Reasonable?
-When comparing energy outlooks, you had GW on the slides, and yet you referred to them as GW/yr!? The distinction is VERY important. Which is correct (and why)?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Thermodynamics and kinetics study of tellurium removal with cuprous ion”, M Mokmeli et al., Hydrometallurgy (2014), 147-48, pp 20-29.
-Is there a key cited reference that is closely related to the main conclusion(s)?
-Is there an important citing reference that supports or questions the main conclusion(s)?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-In summarizing the answers to your main question, is it not more important to make comparisons based on $/m^2 or $/GW (rather than mt/m^2 or mt/GW), especially since refining operations seem to be more important than the mining itself?
-Is it not important (also) to keep track of (and analyze?) the parent minerals mined? Thus, for example, how exactly is pyrite (FeS2?) relevant in this context?
-Is it common/typical that these issues are discussed in seemingly ‘inappropriate’ journals (e.g., J Vacuum Sci Technol or Environ Sci Technol)?
-Do you get the sense that most authors typically (grossly?) overestimate the future contribution of solar energy in order to make the mining issues more relevant (or even dramatic)?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“Implications for CdTe and CIGS technologies production costs of indium and tellurium scarcity”, Prog Photovolt Res Appl (2012), 20, 816-31.
-Do the authors justify $0.75/Wp for solar electricity? (Does it make sense, in the light of the actual situation with electricity supply? See also here…) Do they provide reliable cost evolution data? And does this matter for their main argument?


Comments after final presentation:
-Is the (oversimplified?) conclusion from your research that the (realistic?) replacement of silicon (not unlike that of coal in the energy arena?) will be complicated by resource availability constraints in 2^nd generation PVs and this may (and is expected to?) provide a stimulus for speedier commercialization of 3^rd generation PVs?

Here is Quiz #3.
(Responses: #1-100% False; #2-90% True; #3-90% True; #4-100% False.)
Here is Quiz #7.

(Responses: tbp.)
Here is Quiz #10.

___________________________________________________________________

Team #5 (Greg, gsk5081; Xuwei, xqz5129; Duo, duh281).

Preliminary title: “Oil recovery by low-salinity-water flooding of carbonate reservoirs: Insights into chemical mechanisms”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Low salinity waterflooding in carbonates considering mineralogy”, C Qiao et al., SPE-175018-MS (2015).
-Shouldn’t the title be “Low-salinity-water flooding in …”?
-Is conventional brine classified as high-salinity water? What is/are its most relevant salinity quantifying parameter(s)?
-Where does “increased SO₄^2- adsorption” occur, and what is the evidence for it?
-What is the evidence for the argument that “the decrease of Ca²⁺ concentration enhances anhydrite dissolution and decreases the surface potential”? And for the statement that “the surface concentration of adsorbed carboxylic group decreased”?
-Do the authors cite at least one authoritative study of basic inorganic chemistry? (If not, is it easy to identify such a study, perhaps cited in some of the key references?) For example, is it easy to understand what -COOCa⁺ means and how it presumably represents (a coulombic?) interaction at the oil-water interface? Are the associated equilibrium constants reliable values?

Comments after presentation #1:

-You mentioned a “large surface-to-volume ratio”? Of what, and in what context? Is it really large? (Or just relatively large?)
-If a crude oil has an acid number of 2.07, does this really mean that it contains 2 meq/g of carboxyl groups? If yes, is this not an unusually high oxygen content?

-Would the presence of Mg²⁺ in carbonate rock be more advantageous than that of Ca²⁺? And how exactly would this help to reduce the rock/oil interaction? Does zeta potential characterization of rocks help to answer these questions?
-Which components of the low-salinity water help the most to reduce the rock/oil interactions? Is there consensus in the literature (which you have reviewed) on the relevant mechanism?
-Is the postulated equilibrium CaOH₂⁺COO^- = CaOH₂⁺ + COO^- consistent with the basic principles (and facts) of inorganic chemistry?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
…

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Your 2008 reference (Montaron?) classifies 60% of the oil reservoirs and 40% of the gas reservoirs (in the world?) as being in carbonate rocks; is this still true, after the fracking ‘revolution’?

-Does 35% recovery rate refer to primary recovery or includes also EOR?

-In attempting to gain insight into the governing chemical mechanisms, do the authors (of your cited papers) provide experimental or theoretical (and speculative?) evidence (e.g., in postulating a ‘release’ of carboxyl groups by calcite dissolution as the presumed cause of permeability/porosity increase)?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“Improving Chemical EOR Economics by Optimizing Water Quality”, SPE 144397 (2011).
-Do the authors provide information/explanation regarding the (obvious?) absence of some options in their Figure 9? Is the message of this figure affected by this?
-Are the absolute $ numbers in Figure 9 (and elsewhere?) important (and meaningful)? Or only their relative trends?
-Do the authors demonstrate any economics expertise (or credibility) in this paper?


Comments after final presentation:
-Are the different behaviors of Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺, especially as they respond to a temperature increase, consistent with general (and basic) interfacial chemistry arguments? And do cations or anions (e.g., sulfate) have a greater influence on the oil vs. water wettability behavior?

-Has the “blank experiment” always been carried out: the contribution of a pressure rise upon waterflooding on enhanced recovery?
-In your (very important!) Conclusions slide, you mean ‘alteration’ (rather than ‘alternation’)… Right?

-In some graphs you showed very modest contact angle changes (e.g., the study by Yousef, 2011), while in others (e.g., Mahani, 2017) these changes appear to be much larger… Do they correlate with recovery enhancements? Should they?

_____________________________

Team #6 (Tianyuan, tzw90; Boning, bxz52; Xuanqing, xxl234).

Preliminary title: “Analysis of shale gas adsorption”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Evaluation of gas adsorption in Marcellus shale”, W Yu et al., SPE 170801-MS (2014).
-Do the authors show the (informed!) reader that they are aware of the fact that the relevant issues are (very?) similar to those encountered in extensively studied coalbed methane recovery?
-Do the authors cite reliable evidence for the statement that “[i]t is believed that gas in shale reservoirs is … adsorbed gas in organic matter (kerogen)”? And that “the monolayer Langmuir isotherm describes gas adsorption behavior in shale gas reservoirs”?
-Do the authors mention any reason why “gas adsorption in a shale gas reservoir” would not “[behave] like multilayer adsorption”?
-In discussing Table 4 and Table 5, do the authors explain the variability of the fraction of adsorbed gas in the four samples? Is there a relationship between this amount of (presumably) adsorbed gas and some measurable property of the shale?

-Do the authors cite at least one authoritative study of basic adsorption phenomena (apart from the classic BET and Langmuir papers)? (If not, is it easy to identify such a study, perhaps cited in some of the key references?) For example, do they discuss monolayer adsorption (and the onset of multilayer adsorption) in the context of the available surface area of the different samples?

Comments after presentation #1:

-If TOC of shale reservoirs is so low (typically <10%?), does a comparison of GIP with coalbed methane reservoirs make sense? Should there exist a correlation between TOC and GIP?
-Is there convincing evidence that the same kerogen type (III?) characterizes both coalbeds and shale rock?
-Based on basic adsorption principles, should there exist a correlation between porosity (or specific surface area?) and gas reserves (or GIP)?
-Does a type III isotherm really represent multilayer adsorption? What is its main distinctive feature when compared to type I and type II isotherms?
-Is there some convincing justification for using four different isotherms in an attempt to characterize shale gas adsorption? (Is such ‘Edisonian’ approach reasonable in the XXI century?)

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
…

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Is it reasonable to postulate that maturity may (or should) correlate with the amount of gas adsorbed? Or kerogen type? Has this been explored (and established?) in coalbed methane recovery?

-Are the measured adsorption heats (from T dependence of gas uptakes) reasonable?

-If typical uptakes are 5-25 cc/g (at ca. 15 MPa?), does this correspond to less or more than a monolayer? And is this more or less to methane amounts adsorbed in coalbeds?
-Is it important to distinguish between ‘excess’ and ‘conventional amounts adsorbed?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“The long-run oil-natural gas price relationship and the shale gas revolution”, Caporin and Fontini, Energy Economics 64 (2017), 511-9.

-Is the most relevant graph available in this paper? Or in a cited or a citing paper?
-Comments on this graph?


Comments after final presentation:
-Because your final presentation did emphasize the comparison between CBM and shale gas, should this be reflected somehow in the title of your report?

-Does the reviewed literature really analyze rather superficially the applicability of the various adsorption isotherms? Is it not more important (than reporting R² values) to explore whether these comparisons reveal something about the dominant factors that govern gas adsorption in shale vs. coalbed reservoirs?
-If the relative permeability and porosity values are as you reported them for (typical?) coalbed vs. shale reservoirs, why is there free gas left in the latter? Not being adsorbed, what kept it from escaping (or migrating)?
-Does the literature try to explain why gas uptake at 65 ^oC is similar to the uptake at 50 ^oC? Why is it not lower to the same extent that the uptake at 50 ^oC is lower than the uptake at 35 ^oC? Is this not simply a manifestation of the well known interplay between quasi-equilibrium (uptake decrease as T increases, but equilibrated only in a fraction of accessible pore space) and kinetics (uptake increase as T increases due to increasing accessibility of pore space)?

Here is Quiz #4.
(Responses: #1-70% True; #2-80% False; #3-80% False; #4-100% False.)
Here is Quiz #11.

___________________________________________________________________

Team #7 (Junjun, jxl1270; Ismail, iud30; Shams, svj5235).

Preliminary title: “Applications of fiber optic sensors in petroleum engineering”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Improved microseismic fracture mapping using perforation timing measurements for velocity calibration”, N R Warpinski et al., doi: 10.2118/84488-PA.
-Is fiber optics mentioned in this paper?
-Can the calibrated velocities be related to reasonable ‘microseismic’ frequencies?
-Do the authors show how much better their approach is than conventional fracture mapping?

Comments after presentation #1:

-Have fiber optics been successfully utilized in both gas and oil reservoirs? Are there any significant differences in products/processes used?

-Are all of its applications (e.g., pipeline surveillance, sensors) based on the photoelectr(on)ic effect?
-Being basically a modern (albeit parasitic) ‘invasive’ technique, can it compete with (emerging?) non-invasive methods? Example(s) of advantage (w/r to conventional methodology) based on its unique properties?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Long-range pipeline monitoring by distributed fiber optic sensing”, Inaudi and Glisic, J Press Vessel Technol (2010), 132, 011701.
-In what context is Raman scattering highlighted in the Abstract? And is there such thing (phenomenon) as “Brillouin scattering”? (Why is the name of Brillouin invoked?)
-Does any one of the cited references provide appropriate support for the key scientific argument(s) in this paper? And what exactly is (are) the key scientific argument(s) here?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-Agree that the SCI record for “Brillouin scattering” vs. “Raman scattering” vs. “Rayleigh scattering” is (in title) 4055 vs. 21861 vs. 3353? Possible explanations? And relevance to your study?
-Do the most important PNGE papers, in this eminently interdisciplinary field, typically cite the most authoritative (fundamental or applied?) fiber optics studies? Examples?

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“Costs and Benefits for Pipeline Acoustic Fiber Optic Monitoring”, ND Faber, Pipelines 2017 (ASCE), pp12-22.
-Does the author quantify the “payback period” mentioned in the Conclusion? And is this really (clearly?) shown in Figure 4?
-How are the results in Figure 4 related to the information provided in Table 2?

Comments after final presentation:
-Is there an important applicability difference between acoustic and seismic waves?

Team #8 (Rui, rxl356; Chengcheng, cwl5499; Zhenke, zxx36).

Preliminary title: “Shale gas production decline prediction”.

Discussion of ‘technological’ paper:
“Analysis of decline curves”, J J Arps, SPE-945228-G (1945).
-Is it better to have a hyperbolic or a harmonic decline curve in shale gas production?
-Do the results presented by Arps allow the reader to reconstruct (easily) some of the critical experimental data such that the hyperbolic or harmonic nature of the decline curves can be verified?
-Does the author show how the integration of a decline curve results in a reasonable estimate of reserves? Are there any contradictory examples in the recent citing literature?

Comments after presentation #1:
-Is it really the case that shale gas production requires reservoir stimulation (and must therefore be classified as EGR, by analogy with EOR)?
-Is horizontal drilling necessary or desirable?
-What exactly is ‘kriging’? Origin of the term? (Person?) Original reference(s)?
-Examples and physical significance of b>1?

-Is data ‘wrangling’ really different from data smoothing? Are the procedures used substantially different?

Discussion of ‘scientific’ paper:
“Analysis of production history for unconventional gas reservoirs with statistical methods”, Bhattacharya and Nikolaou, SPE Journal (October 2013), 878-96.

-Are the key PCA equations in the body of the paper or the appendix?
-Do the authors explain the difference, or the complementarity, between PCA and PCR? And do they clearly identify the “principal components” (independent variables?) that govern the production history of unconventional gas reservoirs?
-Have the same (or similar) statistical methods been applied in the past to conventional gas and/or oil reservoirs?

Comments after presentation #2:
-Issues from presentation #1 addressed/dismissed/resolved?
-Example(s) of key graphs and their detailed pre- and post-interpretation?
-How much, and in what way, has the (co)-Kriging method evolved from the originally proposed method (presumably by someone by the name of Krig?)?
-Good initial guesses are often necessary for convergence… has the available literature discussed the sensitivity of the final result to the variability in the initial guess for, say, the parameter b? Or q? Or D? (For example, does b=0.5, instead of b=1.0, converge to essentially the same final result?)

Discussion of ‘economic’ paper:
“U.S. shale oil production and WTI prices behaviour”, Monge et al., Energy (2017), 141, 12-19.
-Do the authors point out and explain any discrepancies from the trends observed in Figure 2?
-Is the “wavelet coherency” analysis justified? Is it not sufficiently obvious that, at least in this instance, the “law” of supply and demand simply worked?

Comments after final presentation:
-If the modeling parameters vary from reservoir to reservoir, is it appropriate (or misleading?) for the (majority of?) researchers to claim ‘prediction’ capabilities of shale gas production (decline curves)?

Here is Quiz #5.

(Responses: #1-100% True; #2-82% True; #3-91% False; #4-100% True.)
Here is Quiz #8.

(Responses: tbp.)
Here is Quiz #12.

___________________________________________________________________

Sources of information:
(a) Media reports (e.g., NYT, WSJ, Economist, NatGeog, SciAmer, ProQuest, etc.)
(b) Web of Knowledge: Here is an example of a “citation report”. Are SPE papers included in the citation analysis?
(c) Patents
(d) Dissertations

How does one design or analyze a product, a process, or a ‘system’?
-Equation(s)?
-‘adjustable’ parameters vs. ‘fundamental’ constants?
-One’s own experience? (Excessive trust? The more one looks, the less one sees?)
-Experience of others? (Trust but verify… How?)
-Why did Darwin not read p52 of Mendel’s 1865 paper on pea hybrids, but did (apparently) read p50, p51 and p53 (according to S Mukherjee, “The Gene”, 2016)? Unlikely that he missed its importance (for his emerging theory of evolution and heredity)? Darwin was not the only one, though: Mendel’s paper was cited only FOUR times over the next three decades!? (Mendel himself also did not fully appreciate the importance of his own findings…) And then?
-Giving credit where credit is really due? See a (very dramatic and) very important example (DNA structure determination): (i) Why three back-to-back papers in the 4/25/1953 issue of Nature? (ii) Read carefully the Acknowledgment sections! (iii) Who won, and who deserved, the Nobel Prize? (Similar ‘story’ with the discovery of fullerene, “the most beautiful molecule”? And of calculus? Others?)
-Speculation by (true) experts!?
-impact of Schrödinger’s “What is Life?”
-…

Structure of the report (overview): What goes where? Deadline: April 29.

-Executive Summary (Abstract): What did you do, how did you do it and what did you find (or discover)?
-Introduction: What is the (general) problem/issue, how had it been addressed in the past, and which (specific) aspect have you addressed in the report?
-Need for subsections 1.1, 1.2, etc.?
-Methodology: How exactly did you do what you did?
2.1 Web of Knowledge
2.2 …
2.3 …
-Results and Discussion: What did you find, what do these findings mean in the context of what was already known, and how novel are your findings?
3.1 …
3.2 …
3.3 …
-These subsections should be arranged carefully such that they (i) faithfully reflect the contents ‘promised’ in the title and (ii) proceed from the general issue(s) to the more specific ones.
-(Summary and) Conclusions: What are the “bottom-line” (take-home) messages?
Required format/submission:
-font 12, at least 1.5-spacing.
-figures and tables on separate pages, either immediately after being mentioned in the text or collected at the end of the report.
-electronic version uploaded Sunday night in Canvas dropbox; printed version delivered to my office on Monday.

The ‘secret’ to good writing is “good reading”… Use the ‘template’ approach? (Find a good paper (in a prestigious journal?) and use it as your ‘model…)
-Exercise ability to identify important papers?
-Exercise ability to identify good papers?
-Exercise ‘efficiency’ of reading (ability to understand the main message(s) quickly)?
-Read good novels… for sentence construction and correct punctuation! (Seen/read “Eats[,] shoots and leaves” by Lynne Truss?)
-“The Old Man and the Sea” as an example: What fraction of Hemingway’s sentences does NOT have a comma? And when sentences do have commas, are these not in ‘easy’ locations? Take-home message?

Bottom line of research “ethics and integrity” (to be discussed, hopefully based on concrete examples, in class of March 26 and beyond)…

Challenges and opportunities in reading/citing patents:
-Is it true that there are more patents citing papers than papers citing patents?
-Do you agree that it is important, and useful, to cite patents (because they contain valuable information on the intellectual property of products and processes), especially in a paper that emphasizes technology (over science)?
-Is it more difficult to cite patents in any specific context because the relationship between text and figures/tables in a patent is not as explicit as it typically is in a paper? Or also because lawyers contribute to a greater degree of ‘vagueness’ than is typical in a sci/tech paper?
-Is it common that patents contain an Introduction (“Description of the Prior Art”) without specific references (a situation that would be unacceptable in a paper), and does that justify the relative absence of patents among the cited references in a sci/tech paper?

Suggestions for class presentation (15-20 min + 5-10 min discussion):
-#1 (overview of project):
-general overview of the topic, including the emerging Table of Contents (5 min);
-several examples of initial analysis of specific issues (10-15 min).
-#2 (progress report):
-general overview of the topic, including the (close-to-definitive) Table of Contents and a brief commentary on at least one important previous review of this topic (10 min);
-representative examples of analysis of important issues based on published literature reports as well as your own analysis of selected tables/figures (5-10 min).
-#3 (final presentation):
-Introduction and Methodology: brief overview of the topic, an example of a key issue, and a presentation of the main objective(s) of your study (<5 min);
-Results and Discussion: representative examples of analysis of important issues based on published literature reports as well as your own analysis of selected tables/figures (10-15 min);
-Summary and/or Conclusions (<5 min).

Peer evaluations: Please send me an e-mail, through Canvas and by midnight April 29 in which you evaluate the contribution of the other members of your team as “above average” or “average” or “below average”.

lrr3@psu.edu (updated 04/29/2018, 23:05)