MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404320259 · doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133384

Challenges and opportunities of CO2 storage in depleted shallow gas reservoirs in Alberta Oilsands area, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404320259 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhuoheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFuel · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural basinSedimentary rockGeologyGeochemistrySedimentary basinEnvironmental scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Shallow gas reservoir is currently not considered suitable CO 2 storage due to concerns of leak risk and storage efficiency. • Since buoyancy of CO2 column is lower than that of natural gas, the top-seal is adequate. • Low risk in leakage through injection induced fracture is low at safe injection pressure. • Small increases in storage pressure significantly increase CO 2 storage at shallow depth. • Additional spaces for storage are available if storage pressure > initial reservoir pressure. Shallow (<900 m) depleted natural gas reservoirs in northeastern Alberta are not generally considered suitable CO 2 storage due to concerns of high leak risks and inefficient storage in low-density gas phase. Re-examination of the depleted gas reservoirs revealed that a) initial reservoir pressure is lower than regional hydrostatic pressure for most gas reservoirs in the region. A non-equilibrium state against inward pressure gradient over geological time is self indicative of effective containment of the natural gas in physical traps; b) under the same reservoir condition, the buoyancy of CO 2 is about 85 % of that from methane dominated natural gas, and the top seal is adequate for CO 2 storage in those gas reservoirs. If pore pressure is higher than the initial reservoir pressure, the buoyancy from further compressed CO 2 column becomes even less. Unless reaching fracture closure pressure or greater than breakthrough pressure, the leak risk of the top seal is low; c) our model suggests that the probability of leaking through injection induced fracture is low if we take 0.6 of the fracture closure pressure (FCP) as the maximum injection and optimal safe storage pressures; d) If the post-injection storage pressure is maintained at 0.6 of FCP, storage capacity in pore spaces from depleted and residual gas intervals alone reach 3036.5 million tonnes (Mt), about five times of the previously estimated 610 Mt. The storage capacity can be even greater if additional pore spaces from the associated sub-economic gas-bearing intervals are considered. The results from this study provide insights into the potential storage of CO 2 within shallow depleted gas reservoirs in the vicinity of Alberta oil sands operations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuelSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207