MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3193742626 · doi:10.2172/1814012

CO<sub>2</sub> Sequestration Assessment of the basal sandstone in Tennessee (SECARB Phase III Work Product 1.6.a)

2011· report· en· W3193742626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Riestenberg, Kimberly A. Gray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationGeologyTonneOil sandsWork (physics)Fossil fuelMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxideHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringWaste managementEngineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geologic carbon sequestration is the permanent storage of CO2 in deep underground geologic formations, which is preceded by the separation and capture of CO2 at the point of emissions from a stationary source such as a coal-fired electric power plant. The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technological Laboratory (NETL) is engaged in research and development of Carbon Sequestration Program technology. This report assesses potential geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage capacity of the basal sandstone in Tennessee. The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership evaluated the Basal Sandstone in Tennessee for potential to store commercial quantities of CO2. This report expands upon the findings from the 2007 assessment of potential CO2 storage reservoirs in the southeast United States, which included an initial assessment of the basal sandstone capacity. These estimates are based on limited and generalized data sets, which are primarily from published literature. In the 2007 report, the depth range for the basal sandstone was found to be 4,000 to 8,000 feet (ft) and the average thickness was 100 ft. The capacity estimate for the basal sandstone from the 2007 report was 2.5 gigatons (Gt) (metric) of CO2. Recognized the need for a more accurate estimate of capacity for the geologic sinks. This report provides a site specific, detailed geologic investigation of the basal sandstone. In this report the CO2 storage capacity of the basal sandstone in Tennessee is assessed using an average reservoir total porosity, gross formation thickness, and average storage reservoir depth and pressure. The methodology is based on the capacity assessment methodology for saline aquifers in the United States Department of Energy 2010 Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada. Storage capacities are summarized in Table ES-1.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→