Acid-gas injection in the Alberta basin, Canada: a CO <sub>2</sub> -storage experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past decade, oil and gas producers in the Alberta basin have been faced with a growing challenge to reduce atmospheric emissions of hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) that is produced from ‘sour’ hydrocarbon pools. Since surface desulphurization is uneconomic, increasingly operators are turning to acid-gas disposal by injection into deep geological formations. Acid gas, a mixture of hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide (H 2 S and CO 2 ), is the by-product of ‘sweetening’ sour hydrocarbons. Although the purpose of the acid-gas injection operations is to dispose of H 2 S, significant quantities of CO 2 are also being injected because it is uneconomical to separate the two gases. The acid-gas injection operations in the Alberta basin represent an analogue to geological sequestration of CO 2 . Large-scale injection of CO 2 into depleted oil and gas reservoirs and into deep saline aquifers is one of the most promising methods of geological sequestration of CO 2 , and in this respect it is no different from acid-gas disposal operations. However, before implementation of greenhouse-gas geological sequestration, a series of questions need to be addressed; the most important ones relate to the short- and long-term fate of the injected CO 2 . Thus, the study of the acid-gas injection operations in Alberta provides the opportunity to learn about the safety of these operations and about the fate of the injected gases, and represents a unique opportunity to investigate the feasibility of CO 2 geological sequestration.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".