MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301491677 · doi:10.2172/1874355

Geologic Modeling and Simulation Report for the Aquistore Project

2016· report· en· W4301491677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tao Jiang, Lawrence Pekot, Lu Jin, Wesley Peck, Charles Gorecki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower stationEnvironmental sciencePlumeCarbon capture and storage (timeline)OutreachEngineeringPetroleum engineeringMining engineeringHydrology (agriculture)GeologyMeteorologyGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership, through the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), 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, Engineering, and Research Committee (SERC); involvement in public outreach; developing geologic models; and running predictive simulations on the expect 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 acts 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. Injection at the Aquistore site was initiated in April 2015; at the time of this report, the daily injection rate ranged from approximately 300 to 500 tonnes per day. To better understand the storage implications of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2), history-match field pressure response, and predict CO2 plume evolution at the Aquistore site, the EERC has constructed a simplified simulation model based on reservoir physical properties obtained from previous mean probability (P50) static geologic model realization. Simulations have been conducted utilizing this model to better understand both operational and geologic uncertainties that may exist at the Aquistore site. The simulations are an update to those completed in the previous update of the original report entitled Geologic Modeling and Simulation Report for the Aquistore Project, Deliverable (D) 93, approved in 2014. In this update, a regional-scale model extends beyond the 34-square-kilometer PTRC 3-D seismic survey area. A local grid refinement (LGR) system near both the injection and observation wells was introduced for the history-matching and uncertainty analysis. Spinner log survey and pressure test data provided by partners were used and evaluated to adjust the near-wellbore local permeability in order to history-match the field pressure data. As of January 9, 2016, approximately 24,000 tonnes of CO2 has been injected during a series of relatively short operating periods. However, the injection rate during these short operating periods increased near the end of year 2015 to a level of 300 to 500 tonnes per day, based on the quantity of CO2 made available from the pipeline. The two wells have been closely monitored, and history matching was performed while reconciling rate, pressure, temperature, variations in injectivity, and injection flow. The current data set is well replicated by the simulation. However, CO2 breakthrough at the observation well has not yet been observed, and geophysical imaging of the CO2 plume has not yet been attempted. Thus important performance confirmations remain to be made, and additional reporting of project performance will be appropriate in the future. A new set of injection forecasts is presented, with some cases directly comparable to the previously published, pre-history match results.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207