MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071551879 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.054

An overview of the Wabamun Area CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP)

2009· article· en· W2071551879 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Keith, Rob Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large stationary CO2 emitters are located in central Alberta with cumulative annual emissions in the order of 30 Mt CO2. This includes four coal-fired power plants in the Wabamun Lake area, southwest of Edmonton with emissions between 3 to 6 Mt/year each. The study will perform a comprehensive characterization of large-scale CO2 storage opportunities in the Wabamun area and analyze any potential risks. As a benchmark, the project will examine the feasibility of storing 20 Mt- CO2/year for 50 years within 30 km of Wabamun. This gigaton-scale storage assessment project is one to two orders of magnitude larger than the commercial projects now under study. It will fill a gap between Canadian province-wide capacity estimates (which do not involve site specific studies of flow and geomechanics etc.) and the detailed commercial studies of small CO2 storage projects currently underway. Unlike the commercial projects, this project is planned as a public non-confidential project lead by the University of Calgary (U of C). The study will first assess the possible injection formations within the area based on storage capacity, ease of injectivity, leakage likelihood, and interference with current petroleum production. Then a few (1–3) specific targets will be selected for more detailed studies. The detailed studies will evaluate how the injected CO2 moves and reacts within the reservoir, the storage integrity of the over and underlying shaly aquitard, leakage risks of CO2 along existing wells and a preliminary well injection design. Finally, the study will do a preliminary assessment of currently available options for monitoring such large scale injection of CO2. Since the project is planned to develop a realistic scenario we will add an economic evaluation of the total project costs downstream of the capture and pipeline transportation components. Furthermore, the study will outline the necessary next steps to close any remaining knowledge gaps before planning and conducting the actual injection phase of the project.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207