MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773373058 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b04498

Statistically Enhanced Model of In Situ Oil Sands Extraction Operations: An Evaluation of Variability in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2017· article· en· W2773373058 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Orellana, Ian J. Laurenzi, Heather L. MacLean, Joule Bergerson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company
KeywordsOil sandsAsphaltGreenhouse gasSteam-assisted gravity drainageEnvironmental scienceExtraction (chemistry)Life-cycle assessmentFossil fuelSynthetic crudeSteam injectionEnvironmental engineeringUnconventional oilPetroleum engineeringWaste managementProduction (economics)EngineeringGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with extraction of bitumen from oil sands can vary from project to project and over time. However, the nature and magnitude of this variability have yet to be incorporated into life cycle studies. We present a statistically enhanced life cycle based model (GHOST-SE) for assessing variability of GHG emissions associated with the extraction of bitumen using in situ techniques in Alberta, Canada. It employs publicly available, company-reported operating data, facilitating assessment of inter- and intraproject variability as well as the time evolution of GHG emissions from commercial in situ oil sands projects. We estimate the median GHG emissions associated with bitumen production via cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) to be 77 kg CO 2 eq/bbl bitumen (80% CI: 61–109 kg CO 2 eq/bbl), and via steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) to be 68 kg CO 2 eq/bbl bitumen (80% CI: 49–102 kg CO 2 eq/bbl). We also show that the median emissions intensity of Alberta’s CSS and SAGD projects have been relatively stable from 2000 to 2013, despite greater than 6-fold growth in production. Variability between projects is the single largest source of variability (driven in part by reservoir characteristics) but intraproject variability (e.g., startups, interruptions), is also important and must be considered in order to inform research or policy priorities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207