Geologic Modeling and Simulation Report for the Aquistore Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership, through the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), has been supporting, and continues to support, the Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) Aquistore project. This support has been in the form of geologic characterization, involvement in the Science and Engineering Research Committee (SERC), involvement in public outreach, developing geologic models and running predictive simulations on the expected injection program at the site. The Aquistore project is part of the world’s first commercial postcombustion carbon capture, utilization, and storage project from a coal-fired power-generating facility, the SaskPower Boundary Dam, located in Saskatchewan, Canada, and will be acting as a storage site for a portion of the captured CO2 from the Boundary Dam power plant. The Aquistore site includes one injection well and a 152-meter offset observation well. Both wells were drilled and completed in the Deadwood and Black Island Formations. At the time of this report, injection at the Aquistore site is anticipated to begin in late 2014. To better understand the storage implications of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) at the Aquistore site, the EERC has constructed P10, P50, and P90 geologic model realizations and run three new predictive simulation scenarios on each realization. These models and simulations were constructed to better understand both operational and geologic uncertainties that may exist at the Aquistore site. The geologic model realizations and simulations are an update to those completed in the original report entitled “Geologic Modeling and Simulation Report for the Aquistore Project,” Deliverable D93, approved in March 2014. In this update, the same fine-scale model extent of the 34-square-kilometer PTRC 3-D seismic survey area, with higher structural resolution, was continually used for the uncertainty analysis. A low (P10), mid (P50), and high volumetric (P90) case for the amount of pore volume accessible to store the potential injected CO2 was ranked based on certain deviation variations of model-building parameters, including effective porosity and net-to-gross reservoir, in six sand units of the study area. Three cases with various injection rate and period schemes were simulated based on uncertainty models P10, P50, and P90.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".