Improving Oil Recovery and Enabling CCS: A Comparison of Offshore Gas-recycling in Europe to CCUS in North America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of European offshore gas-recycling in the North Sea to an exemplar onshore carbon capture-utilization-and-storage project (CCUS) in North America. Natural gas recycling has a long and successful history in the North Sea; while North America has pioneered the utilization of CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery. With renewed interest in CO 2 EOR as a means of stimulating carbon capture and storage (CCS), a simple comparison of these two gas injection cultures illuminates the potential of CCUS to change the velocity of, and cost- of-entry for, large CCS projects in Europe. The comparison of Weyburn, a large CO 2 EOR operation in Canada, with Åsgard, offshore Norway, a large natural gas recycling operation, is based on a comparative CO 2 price of 70 USD per tonne and conservative oil price for the last decade of 70 USD per barrel. A hypothetical offshore CO 2 EOR scenario is described to illustrate how the revenue-expenditure ratios are similar for offshore and onshore projects – around 5:1 for the additional oil produced from acquired CO 2 . A nominal carbon tax of 35 USD per tonne increases this to 10:1, demonstrating the potential for CO 2 EOR to stimulate CCS. However, large upfront capital investments and a regional shortage of captured CO 2 are significant hurdles to offshore European CCUS. The comparison also suggests a CO 2 emissions-storage ratio of 2:1. While this is a low carbon footprint for oil, in order for these projects to have a zero carbon footprint, they would require a transition to significant associated storage. It follows that the role of CO 2 EOR in a European CCUS context is primarily to stimulate the role-out of capture and transport infrastructure, and to access to large offshore CO 2 storage hubs in the North Sea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it