South West Hub CCS Project: Lessons to be learned from the 2014 3D seismic survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The South West Hub (SWH) project is Australia’s first carbon capture and storage (CCS) flagship project. Managed by the WA government’s Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), the SWH is assessing the geological properties of a proposed CO2 storage site in the southwest of WA to determine its feasibility. This includes collating detailed geological information, partnering with researchers, acquiring baseline data, consulting with communities and stakeholders, and negotiating land access. Recent activities have included a 2D seismic survey in 2011, drilling of a stratigraphic well (Harvey–1) in 2012 and a comprehensive (115 km2) 3D seismic survey in 2014. A further drilling program is planned for the fourth quarter of 2014 until the first quarter of 2015. The 2014 3D seismic survey has been described as one of the most complex land-based seismic surveys conducted in Australia due to environmental factors, and competing land use and land access constraints. This extended abstract reviews the recent 3D seismic survey, including the development of the project’s scope and procurement processes through to community engagement and implementation, and outlines how the lessons are being incorporated into the upcoming drilling program. It will also discuss legacy issues that have impacted on community attitudes and confidence, and the challenges of working with potentially hostile communities, and also demonstrate how the project adopted and adapted best practice engagement guidelines and toolkits for CCS projects to achieve successful outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".