MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200198417 · doi:10.3390/en15010086

Policy Insights to Accelerate Cleaner Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Operations

2021· article· en· W4200198417 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marwa Hannouf, Getachew Assefa, Ian D. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageOil sandsGreenhouse gasSoftware deploymentEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental policyAsphaltPetroleum engineeringEngineeringNatural resource economicsWaste managementEnvironmental planningEconomicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature is replete with concerns on the environmental impact of steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), but rigorous analysis of its improved environmental performance over the past 20 years remains unresolved, as well as the underlying technological reasons for this improvement. Here, we present an analysis of historical and future greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of SAGD operations in Alberta, Canada, considering for the first-time factors that affected technology deployment. Depending on the case, the results show a reduction of 1.4–24% of SAGD GHG intensity over the past 12 years. Improvements mainly arise from incremental changes adopted based on technical, environmental, socio-economic, and policy drivers. Considering these factors, we propose policy interventions to accelerate further reductions of GHG emissions. However, if similar behaviour from industry continues, anticipated GHG intensity reduction will range between 6.5–40% by 2030, leading to an intensity between 58 and 68 kgCO2e/bbl. It still remains unclear if in situ oil sands bitumen extraction will reach current conventional oil emission intensities. Thus, we suggest that the SAGD industry drastically accelerate its deployment of cleaner oil sands extraction technologies considering the policy insights proposed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207