MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400193874 · doi:10.2118/0724-0105-jpt

Proposed Methods Accelerate Permanent CO2-Storage Process

2024· article· en· W4400193874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)SAFERComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringComputer securitySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

_ This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 215352,“ Accelerating the Permanent CO2 Storage Process: A Safer and Faster Route to Net Zero,” by Shubham Mishra, SPE, Boston Consulting Group. The paper has not been peer reviewed. _ The complete paper proposes two methods of accelerating the solidification (or mineralization) of CO2 in subsurface conditions, thus reducing the time required in the CO2 storage process. It also reviews industry and academic works devoted to the subject. Introduction Two main concerns with CO2 storage in subsurface reservoirs and CO2 sequestration are the large time cycle involved in its permanent storage and the associated environmental risks. Because other CO2 trapping mechanisms can be reversible, these concerns hinge heavily on the time required for solidification or mineralization of CO2 into a component such as calcite (CaCO3). Using current technologies and practices, it is practically impossible to complete the soaking period—or, in simpler words, a CO2 storage project—in one lifetime. Thus, technological development of CO2 storage, which depends on field validations, becomes an extremely long, multigenerational process. On the other hand, environmental safety is always a concern with underground CO2 storage. Three of four CO2 trapping mechanisms (structural, solubility-based, and residual) pose greater risk to the environment than does the fourth, which is mineralization or solidification. Therefore, from the point of view of environmental safety, mineralization is the most permanent form of CO2 storage that minimizes the risk of CO2 existing in gaseous form in the reservoir and thus flowing upward to shallower zones or the surface. Related Efforts Several research projects devoted to finding a commercial solution for accelerating the mineralization process are ongoing, including the following: - The CarbFix project in Iceland is based upon injection of CO2 dissolved in water streams into basalt rocks for accelerating mineral trapping. Through tracer surveys and mass calculations, the project has proposed that mineralization can be achieved in as little as 2 years for the size of the reservoir under consideration and the amount of CO2 injected. - A Canadian startup (Carbon Engineering) is turning carbon emissions into pellets that could be used as a synthetic fuel source, while a Swiss company called Climeworks is pumping extracted carbon to farms for agricultural use. - Another start-up is using calcium oxide, a waste product from the steel industry called steel slag, to react with CO2 and form CaCO3. This is used in controlled surface conditions in a cement-industry setup. This process, however, highlights how the reactions converting CO2 into solid can be sped up. - University research projects are ongoing that focus on use of various catalysts for increasing the rate of the mineralization chemical reaction, resulting in the formation of CaCO3. Proposed Methods While industry and academia are focusing on niche setups to solve this problem, not much focus is being placed on general large-scale applications such as increasing the mineralization chemical reaction rate in sandstone saline aquifers, where approximately 80% of potential carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects will be developed. Thus, technologies or workflows that can be applied in CO2 storage projects in saline aquifers to increase the mineralization reaction rate can be essential to bringing a shift to the larger vision of CCUS. In this effort, an integrated approach incorporating experience from oil and gas, cement, and other adjacent industries can help develop potential solutions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207