MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280535645 · doi:10.1071/aj21092

The Petrel Sub-basin: a world-class CO2 store – mapping and modelling of a scalable and commercially viable CCS development

2022· article· en· W4280535645 on OpenAlexaff
Rosie Johnstone, Linda Stalker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural basinGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceSubmarine pipelineQuake (natural phenomenon)Port (circuit theory)GeologyOceanographyEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, the Australian Government announced a round of offshore greenhouse gas acreage release, including an area where research by Shell/CSIRO in 2016/2017 indicated close to 1 Gt carbon dioxide storage potential within the Mesozoic sediments of the Sandpiper, Elang and Plover Formations of the Petrel Sub-basin. The joint Shell/CSIRO study assessed key containment issues (legacy wells, potentially conductive faults, top seal extent) and storage formation connectivity. To study containment risk, CSIRO assessed a single injection well scenario and concluded that injection of up to 20 MTPA would not create geomechanical failure. Based on these findings, a ~5000 km2 area of interest southeast of the Petrel Field was proposed as suitable for injection in the Plover/Elang formations. The Shell team constructed topographical dynamic models at five potential locations. Three further models were built to simulate a base case and two end-member scenarios: (1) high permeability (leak point risk) and (2) low-pressure dissipation (top seal risk). The study showed that the development of two injector wells at one of the locations could safely and conservatively store 149 Mt, injected over a period of 30 years. Similar capacity is expected at four out of the five locations identified within the investigated area. Expansion to >2 injection wells per location, additional injection into the Sandpiper Formation and expansion to the west of the initially mapped focus area all point to achievable gigatonne storage potential. The joint study significantly expanded the understanding of the storage capacity, with recommendations for further data acquisition in both greenhouse gas (GHG) permits (GHG21-1 and GHG21-2).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207