Regulatory Framework to Accommodate Geological Storage of CO2 in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 121000, "Guidelines for a Regulatory Framework To Accommodate Geological Storage of CO2 in Alberta," by M. Zeidouni, SPE, M. Moore, and D. Keith, University of Calgary, prepared for the 2009 SPE Americas E&P Environmental & Safety Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 23-25 March. The paper has not been peer reviewed. A variety of methods has been proposed to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. One method is CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations. Despite exceptional CCS potential in the Province of Alberta, Canada, legal and regulatory issues must be resolved to allow implementation. Without changes, there will not be enough certainty to enable the industry to make appropriate decisions that encourage investment. Introduction The Canadian federal government has announced a national objective to reduce emissions nationally by 20% from current levels by 2020, and by 60 to 70% by 2050. Various target levels have been defined for greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions in Alberta. Alberta is the first province in Canada to introduce legislation to reduce GHG-emission intensity from large industrial sources. Large companies in Alberta emitting more than 100 000 t/a of GHGs will have to reduce their annual emissions intensity by 12%, or they will be charged USD 15/t (all costs are in 2005 dollars) above the 12% target. Alberta claims that it wants to cut its projected GHG emissions in half, by 200 Mt, by 2050. CCS CCS is a process for reducing GHG emissions into the atmosphere by first extracting CO2 from gas streams typically emitted during electricity production, fuel processing, and other industrial process. Once captured and compressed, the CO2 would be transported by pipeline or tanker to a storage site, often to be injected into an underground storage site (or geological formation). Potential sites for geological storage of CO2 include enhanced oil recovery by use of CO2, CO2 storage (CS) in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, replacement of methane by CO2 in deep coalbeds, injection of CO2 in deep saline aquifers, and CS in salt caverns. Among these options, saline aquifers possess the highest potential for CS in Alberta. Preliminary estimates indicate that the capacity of the Alberta basin to sequester CO2 dissolved in the formation waters at depths greater than 1000 m is on the order of 4000 Gt of CO2. Challenges and Deployment High capital costs and regulatory issues are the main challenges to CCS. Although all the components of CCS technology (i.e., capture, transport, and storage) are available and being demonstrated, they are not fully integrated in commercial-scale facilities. The current cost of CCS is USD 65 to 85/t of CO2. This cost is predicted to reduce to USD 20 to 30/t of CO2 after the technology is fully commercialized, which is expected to occur along with technology advancement after 2020. Financial and regulatory support is needed to make this happen. The industry requires policy and regulatory certainty to assess financial risks of carrying on with investment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».