1887

Abstract

Summary

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is vital for reducing emissions from hard-to-decarbonize industries such as oil & gas, chemicals, steel, and cement production. Large-scale CCS implementation requires a comprehensive understanding of potential storage sinks, connectivity between emission sources and storage sites, and the infrastructure needed for CO capture, transport, and injection. While existing industry reports and research studies provide rich insights into geological and operational parameters, manual consolidation of these vast data sets is inefficient, error-prone, and limits traceability and validation.

To address these challenges, we propose a Data Fabric framework that transforms multi-modal data into a unified, queryable graph-like representation (semantic graph). This graph links pre-defined concepts, such as emission sources, geological formations, and infrastructure systems, by identifying and semantically evaluating their co-occurrence in a specific context. This framework is applied to CCS-related research data from two geologically different regions for rapid knowledge discovery to support effective CCS project planning and deployment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510502
2025-06-02
2025-11-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agada, S., Geiger, S., & Doster, F. [2016] Wettability, hysteresis and fracture-matrix interaction during C02 EOR and storage in fractured carbonate reservoirs. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 46, 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali, M., Al-Anssari, S., Arif, M., Barifcani, A., Sarmadivaleh, M., Stalker, L., Lebedev, M., & Iglauer, S. [2019] Organic acid concentration thresholds for ageing of carbonate minerals: Implications for CO2 trapping/storage. Journal of colloid and interface science, 534, 88–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthonsen, K., Aagaard, P., Bergmo, P., Erlström, M., Fareide, J., Gislason, S., Mortensen, G., & Snæbjornsdóttir, S. [2013] CO2 Storage Potential in the Nordic Region. Energy Procedia, 37, 5080–5092.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., Van Der Meer, B., & Kirby, G. [2004] Seismic monitoring at the Sleipner underground CO2 storage site (North Sea). Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 233, 181–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chadwick, R., Zweigel, P., Gregersen, U., Kirby, G., Holloway, S., & Johannessen, P. [2004] Geological reservoir characterization of a CO2 storage site: The Utsira Sand, Sleipner, northern North Sea. Energy, 29, 1371–1381.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. De Abreu Siqueira, T., De Freitas Quandt, G., Kunz, L., Credoz, A., & Iglesias, R. [2014] Experimental Study of Carbonate Reactivity in the context of CO2 Geological Storage. 69 Congresso Anual da ABM - Internacional69, 69.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Halland, E., Riis, F., Magnus, C., Johansen, W., Tappel, I., Gjeldvik, I., Solbakk, T., & Pham, V. [2013] CO2 Storage Atlas of the Norwegian Part of the North Sea. Energy Procedia, 37, 4919–4926.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ivanova, A., & Lüth, S. [2015] Quantitative seismic monitoring of a saline aquifer: A feasibility study for the CO2 injection (The Pilot Site Ketzin, Germany). Energy Procedia, 76, 543–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Loschetter, A., Rohmer, J., Raucoules, D., & Michele, M. [2015] Sizing a geodetic network for risk-oriented monitoring of surface deformations induced by CO2 injection: Experience feedback with InSAR data collected at In-Salah, Algeria. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 42, 571–582.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Onoja, M., & Shariatipour, S. [2018] The impact of gradational contact at the reservoir-seal interface on geological CO2 storage capacity and security. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 72, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Osmond, J., Mulrooney, M., Holden, N., Skurtveit, E., Faleide, J., & Braathen, A. [2022] Structural traps and seals for expanding CO2 storage in the northern Horda Platform, North Sea. AAPG Bulletin, 106(9), 1711–1752.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Teng, L., Liu, X., Li, X., Li, Y., & Lu, C. [2021] An approach of quantitative risk assessment for release of supercritical CO2 pipelines. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 94, 104131.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Tveiten, O.G [2023] Guest editorial: Recycling CO2 for EOR? Why not?. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 75(02), 10–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Verdon, J., Kendall, J., Stork, A., Chadwick, R., White, D., Bissell, R., Thiemens, M., & K, J. [2013] Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO2 storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, E2762–E2771.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilday, J., Wardman, M., Johnson, M., & Haines, M. [2011] Hazards from carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 89, 482–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Williams, J., Jin, M., Bentham, M., Pickup, G., Hannis, S., & Mackay, E. [2013] Modelling carbon dioxide storage within closed structures in the UK Bunter Sandstone Formation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 18, 38–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, Y., Jackson, C., & Krevor, S. [2021] An Estimate of the Amount of Geological CO2 Storage over the Period of 1996–2020. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 9, 693–698.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Zweigel, P., Arts, R., Lothe, A., & Lindeberg, E. [2004] Reservoir geology of the Utsira Formation at the first industrial-scale underground C02 storage site (Sleipner area, North Sea). Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 233, 165–180.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510502
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510502
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error