Search

Abstract: Over the last decade, there has been significant scrutiny and criticism regarding the reliability and efficacy of values put forward as CO2geological storage capacity estimates. Initial estimates were unsophisticated, with little or no geological or technical components used in the assessments. Enormous numeric ranges were quoted, and reliance was placed on gross oversimplifications of both complex geological settings, as well as the physical limitations of the geological strata to accept and retain any CO2that might be injected and stored. More recent efforts have focused upon the need to determine better standards for making storage capacity estimates and to establish some uniformity in the estimation methods. As more emphasis has been placed on the approaches (formulas and algorithms) that various authors have utilized, less effort is being documented on the actual prospectivity of the rocks i.e. the geology. Unless the rocks at any given site are understood well enough then the level of uncertainty regarding their geological suitability for storage will never be low enough to allow financial investment and consequently geological storage will be unable to prove-up and deliver the outcomes that it promised a decade ago. The Queensland CO2Geological Storage Atlas assessed 36 sedimentary basins across the state of Queensland in Australia and during the assessment a methodology was developed (“CGSS methodology”) for regional storage capacity estimations. The CGSS methodology produces conservative regional storage volumetric estimates, that can be relied upon by policy decision makers to be highly likely to be available in a given sedimentary province, and which can be duplicated and revisited by other scientists and engineers, whilst also preserving the assumptions and decision processes. The CGSS methodology contrasts starkly with some existing approaches which deal with prospectivity by applying a Storage Efficiency (SE) factor at a whole of basin scale with limited specific depth, temperature, pressure, geological and geophysical information to guide the estimate or by use of generic assumptions (e.g. for CO2 density). If such an approach had been adopted in the Queensland Atlas assessment, it would have generated storage capacity values several orders of magnitude higher than the CGSS methodology. Back calculating a Storage Efficiency (SE) factor for the Queensland Atlas assessment, so as to get the same final numerical estimate produced with the CGSS methodology, results in a SE factor of ∼0.10-0.15% of the total basin pore volume. This contrasts with SE factors of ∼4% commonly applied when using the storage efficiency factor methodologies. Given the high level of technical detail that was used in the Queensland CO2 Geological Storage Atlas to arrive at a regional storage capacity estimate using the CGSS methodology, and the substantial disparity that a storage efficiency approach generates, it raises the question of how reliable the storage efficiency approach may actually be, especially where site specific or regionally representative geological parameters have not been used as a guide or constraint in an assessment? [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Thirty six onshore basins in Queensland, Australia, have been assessed for their CO2 geological storage prospectivity through injection into either: regional reservoir-seal intervals (‘saline reservoirs‘ and aquifers); depleted oil and gas fields; or deep unmineable coal seams. This comprehensive state wide regional assessment is based on the technical (geological) suitability for geological storage, and does not consider factors such as potential interference with other resources, distance from emissions nodes or absolute storage volumes. Basins were assessed by evaluating the potential reservoir-seal intervals for their effectiveness for injection, storage and containment of CO2. Methodologies have been developed that allow the estimation of storage capacity volumes within highly prospective reservoir-seal fairways at a regional scale. These estimates reflect conservative values that are more reliable than previous theoretical estimates, which relied upon access to pore space at the physical limit of the pore rock volume to accept fluids. Results show that the greatest potential to store the large quantities of CO2 required to make deep cuts in Queensland’s stationary emissions is to use deep, regional reservoir-seal intervals using structural traps or migration assisted storage (MAS) mechanisms. The Bowen, Cooper, Eromanga, Galilee and Surat basins contain Paleozoic–Mesozoic age fluvial reservoirs that have either produced hydrocarbons, and/or are major aquifers, and are evaluated as having the highest prospectivity for CO2 geological storage in Queensland. Other basins have either low prospectivity or are unsuitable for geological storage. Depleted oil and gas fields and deep unmineable coal seams provide only limited opportunities for geological storage of CO2 in Queensland. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Deals with a study which evaluated the efficacy of bifenthrin+piperonyl butoxide+chlorpyrifosmethyl against beetle and psocid pests of sorghum in Australia. Materials and methods; Results; Discussion.

Accurate and reliable staging of disease extent in patients with malignant MM is essential to ensure appropriate treatment planning. The detection of recurrent or residual malignancy after primary treatment is important to allow for early intervention and to optimise patient survival. 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ((18)F-FDG) PET or PET computed tomography (PET/CT) is indicated for surveillance of malignant MM due to its high sensitivity and specificity for soft-tissue or nodal recurrences and metastases. It has been claimed that including lower extremities and skull in addition to 'eyes to thigh' images in PET/CT evaluation of metastatic MM routinely is warranted. We have studied retrospectively the reports of whole-body PET/CT scans in all patients with MM scanned in our Department from April 2005 to December 2010. All PET abnormalities in the brain/scalp and lower extremities were tabulated by location and whether they were 'expected' or 'unexpected'. Findings were correlated with pathology, other imaging studies, and clinical follow-up. In this study, 398 PET/CT examinations in 361 patients with MM were included. Results showed that twelve of the 398 (3%) scans had brain/scalp abnormalities, with only 4 (1.0%) showing unexpected abnormalities. Twenty nine of the 398 (7.2%) scans showed lower extremity abnormalities, with only 5 (1.2%) showing unexpected abnormalities. In no case was an isolated unexpected malignant lesion identified in the brain/scalp or lower extremities. In conclusion, whole body PET/CT scan showed about 1% unexpected primary or metastatic MM lesions involving the head or lower extremities, which seldom offered significant additional clinical benefit and were unlikely to change clinical management. No clinically significant change in staging would have occurred. Routine 'eyes to thighs' images were adequate for this subset of patients.