MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762177400 · doi:10.2118/187100-ms

Modeling of CO2 Leakage from CCS into Overlying Formations - Quest CCS Monitoring Evaluation

2017· article· en· W2762177400 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeff Duer

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
FundersCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsLeakLeak detectionEnvironmental scienceContainment (computer programming)Greenhouse gasLeakage (economics)Software deploymentCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Petroleum engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringGeologyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Commercial-scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a viable greenhouse gas emissions reduction technology requires that the CO2 be confidently contained in geological formations with no risk of groundwater contamination. To ensure containment is adequately monitored, an evaluation of what a potential leak could look like and how it can be detected is required. This paper is an example from the Quest CCS operation in Alberta, Canada. Quest commenced operation in August of 2015 at a rate of 1 MT/year into two injection wells. After two years of operations, the project’s rigorous monitoring program has demonstrated that the reservoir is behaving as expected and no leaks have been detected. However, hypothetical leak paths have been investigated and modeled. Four scales of models have been used to evaluate the risks associated with the hypothetical leak paths and therefore on containment: (1) Geological structural models - Regional Static Model, Field Dynamic Model, (2) Legacy well - Well Brine Leak Path Model (3) CO2 Leakage - Injection Well CO2 Leak Path Model, and (4) Leak detection - Cooking Lake Model. The results of the modelling were used in the evaluation of the Quest project proposal, the current operating strategy, and the measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) plan. The results of the leak path models demonstrate that the risk of a CO2 leakage from the Quest storage operation is very low. Regional modeling of the overburden confirmed that no leak pathways in the project area could be identified. Field level dynamic modelling demonstrated that injected CO2 is not expected to reach far field legacy wells, but the potential for elevated reservoir pressure displacing saline brine into usable ground water could be a risk if insufficient well count. The impact of a brine leak path was modeled and concluded to be negligible as the overlying under pressured cooking lake formation was concluded to be an effective pressure sink. As the injection wells have the highest pressures and concentrations of CO2 in the reservoir, despite excellent wellbore integrity, they are the most likely location for a theoretical CO2 leak path. It was both concluded that the buoyancy force was a very slow moving affect and that the cooking lake formation ultimately acts as a pressure sink. Therefore, the cooking lake was modeled to understand what pressure response could be expected and whether a leak into those formations could be detected. It was concluded that material leaks at the injection well would be differentiable from baseline pressure drift at the monitoring wells.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207