MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2258229514 · doi:10.2172/1126712

Basin-Scale Leakage Risks from Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Impact on Carbon Capture and Storage Energy Market Competitiveness

2014· report· en· W2258229514 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine A. Peters, Jeffrey P. Fitts, ELIZABETH WILSON, Melisa F. Pollak, Jeffrey M. Bielicki, Vatsal Bhatt

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typereport
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarbon sequestrationLeakage (economics)AquiferEnvironmental scienceStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)GeologyPetroleum engineeringGroundwaterCarbon dioxideGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This three-year project, performed by Princeton University in partnership with the University of Minnesota and Brookhaven National Laboratory, examined geologic carbon sequestration in regard to CO{sub 2} leakage and potential subsurface liabilities. The research resulted in basin-scale analyses of CO{sub 2} and brine leakage in light of uncertainties in the characteristics of leakage processes, and generated frameworks to monetize the risks of leakage interference with competing subsurface resources. The geographic focus was the Michigan sedimentary basin, for which a 3D topographical model was constructed to represent the hydrostratigraphy. Specifically for Ottawa County, a statistical analysis of the hydraulic properties of underlying sedimentary formations was conducted. For plausible scenarios of injection into the Mt. Simon sandstone, leakage rates were estimated and fluxes into shallow drinking-water aquifers were found to be less than natural analogs of CO{sub 2} fluxes. We developed the Leakage Impact Valuation (LIV) model in which we identified stakeholders and estimated costs associated with leakage events. It was found that costs could be incurred even in the absence of legal action or other subsurface interference because there are substantial costs of finding and fixing the leak and from injection interruption. We developed a model framework called RISCS, which can be used to predict monetized risk of interference with subsurface resources by combining basin-scale leakage predictions with the LIV method. The project has also developed a cost calculator called the Economic and Policy Drivers Module (EPDM), which comprehensively calculates the costs of carbon sequestration and leakage, and can be used to examine major drivers for subsurface leakage liabilities in relation to specific injection scenarios and leakage events. Finally, we examined the competiveness of CCS in the energy market. This analysis, though qualitative, shows that financial incentives, such as a carbon tax, are needed for coal combustion with CCS to gain market share. In another part of the project we studied the role of geochemical reactions in affecting the probability of CO{sub 2} leakage. A basin-scale simulation tool was modified to account for changes in leakage rates due to permeability alterations, based on simplified mathematical rules for the important geochemical reactions between acidified brines and caprock minerals. In studies of reactive flows in fractured caprocks, we examined the potential for permeability increases, and the extent to which existing reactive transport models would or would not be able to predict it. Using caprock specimens from the Eau Claire and Amherstburg, we found that substantial increases in permeability are possible for caprocks that have significant carbonate content, but minimal alteration is expected otherwise. We also found that while the permeability increase may be substantial, it is much less than what would be predicted from hydrodynamic models based on mechanical aperture alone because the roughness that is generated tends to inhibit flow.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,750
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsTravaux en français237 207