IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v4y2022i4p62-1019d940611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acid Gas Re-Injection System Design Using Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Vassiliki Anastasiadou

    (School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Anna Samnioti

    (School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Renata Kanakaki

    (School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Vassilis Gaganis

    (School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece
    Institute of Geoenergy, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, 73100 Chania, Greece)

Abstract

An “energy evolution” is necessary to manifest an environmentally sustainable world while meeting global energy requirements, with natural gas being the most suitable transition fuel. Covering the ever-increasing demand requires exploiting lower value sour gas accumulations, which involves an acid gas treatment issue due to the greenhouse gas nature and toxicity of its constituents. Successful design of the process requires avoiding the formation of acid gas vapor which, in turn, requires time-consuming and complex phase behavior calculations to be repeated over the whole operating range. In this work, we propose classification models from the Machine Learning field, able to rapidly identify the problematic vapor/liquid encounters, as a tool to accelerate phase behavior calculations. To set up this model, a big number of acid gas instances are generated by perturbing pressure, temperature, and acid gas composition and offline solving the stability problem. The generated data are introduced to various classification models, selected based on their ability to provide rapid answers when trained. Results show that by integrating the resulting trained model into the gas reinjection process simulator, the simulation process is substantially accelerated, indicating that the proposed methodology can be readily utilized in all kinds of acid gas flow simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Vassiliki Anastasiadou & Anna Samnioti & Renata Kanakaki & Vassilis Gaganis, 2022. "Acid Gas Re-Injection System Design Using Machine Learning," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:62-1019:d:940611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/62/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/62/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Samnioti & Eirini Maria Kanakaki & Evangelia Koffa & Irene Dimitrellou & Christos Tomos & Paschalia Kiomourtzi & Vassilis Gaganis & Sofia Stamataki, 2023. "Wellbore and Reservoir Thermodynamic Appraisal in Acid Gas Injection for EOR Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-26, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Monica Santillan Vera & Lilia Garcia Manrique & Isabel Rodriguez Pena & Angel de la Vega Navarro, 2021. "Drivers of Electricity GHG Emissions and the Role of Natural Gas in Mexican Energy Transition," Working Paper Series 1021, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Pfoser, Sarah & Schauer, Oliver & Costa, Yasel, 2018. "Acceptance of LNG as an alternative fuel: Determinants and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 259-267.
    5. Jacquet, Jeffrey B., 2012. "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 677-688.
    6. Holahan, Robert & Arnold, Gwen, 2013. "An institutional theory of hydraulic fracturing policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 127-134.
    7. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    8. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    9. Neetzow, Paul, 2021. "The effects of power system flexibility on the efficient transition to renewable generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    10. Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    11. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    12. Makena Coffman & Paul Bernstein & Sherilyn Wee & Clarice Schafer, 2017. "Economic and GHG impacts of natural gas for Hawaii," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 519-536, July.
    13. Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    14. Thi Thu Huong Nguyen & Zhi Yang & Ninh Nguyen & Lester W. Johnson & Tuan Khanh Cao, 2019. "Greenwash and Green Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Green Skepticism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:62-1019:d:940611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.