MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209824744 · doi:10.4122/1.1000000593

Analysis of potential CO2 leakage through abandoned wells using a semi-analytical model

2006· article· en· W3209824744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitri Kavetski, Jan M. Nordbotten, Michael A. Celia, Stefan Bachu

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)Environmental sciencePetroleum engineeringGeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential injection sites for geological CO2 storage include deep formations in mature sedimentary basins. Many of these basins have a long history of oil and gas exploration and production and the vicinity of the injection site may therefore be perforated by hundreds of wells, potentially penetrating into the injection formation. Geosequestration models must therefore be able to simulate plume spreads over large spatial areas (of order 1,000 km2), while resolving the local dynamics in all the wells. Furthermore, many of these wells are abandoned and their locations and hydraulic properties might be uncertain or unknown. Therefore, risk assessment based on Monte Carlo simulations may be necessary to estimate the resulting uncertainty in the leakage. In this paper, we present a semi-analytical model that simulates the evolution of CO2 plumes and leakage in multiple brine aquifers pierced by multiple passive wells over decadal to century time scales. The model’s equations and state variables are obtained from the self-similarity of the plume shapes and are defined solely at well locations. Since the model does not require domain discretisation in the traditional numerical sense, it is highly computationally efficient, potentially thousands of times faster than existing numerical multiphase simulators. This paper demonstrates the insights gained by applying this model to a potential injection site in the Alberta Basin, Canada, involving more than 500 existing wells over a domain that is 900 km2. Different leakage measures and statistics are presented and discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207