pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00859 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · math.PR

Recognition: unknown

Risk sharing in cooperative game models for CO₂ storage with uncertain geology and pressure competition

Per Pettersson , Svenn Tveit , Sarah Gasda
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 01:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph math.PR
keywords CO2 storagerisk sharingcooperative gamesgeological uncertaintypressure communicationstochastic gamesUtsira Formationmaximum entropy priors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Risk-averse CO2 storage operators benefit from collaboration when geological sites have no pressure communication.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models CO2 storage operators as agents in a stochastic cooperative game who face uncertainty from unknown geology and possible interference from other projects. Agents differ in risk attitude, defined as willingness to accept variability in predicted CO2 storage volumes. They can form coalitions to share commercial risk if the joint outcome improves on the individual-injection baseline. Numerical simulations of a realistic North Sea site generate probability distributions over storage outcomes. These distributions are combined with maximum-entropy priors over possible injection actions to create belief distributions that remain usable even when pressure links exist between sites.

Core claim

Risk-averse agents obtain strictly higher expected utility by forming coalitions when no hydraulic connections exist between storage sites. When pressure communication is present, feasible injection rates vary widely, yet the resulting belief distributions still supply informative guidance for deciding whether collaboration is worthwhile.

What carries the argument

Stochastic cooperative game whose payoffs are random variables obtained from numerical simulation of geological parameters, augmented by maximum-entropy priors over sets of viable injection actions.

If this is right

  • Isolated risk-averse operators will form coalitions to reduce uncertainty in stored volumes.
  • Belief distributions remain decision-relevant even when pressure interference prevents a unique baseline scenario.
  • Operators can use the same numerical model to evaluate both isolated and interfering site configurations.
  • Collaboration decisions can be made before full geological data are available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be applied to clusters of storage sites at varying distances to quantify how pressure coupling strength affects coalition stability.
  • Adding real-time pressure monitoring would narrow the belief distributions and potentially increase the value of collaboration.
  • Regulators could use the model outputs to design cost-sharing contracts that encourage risk-averse operators to pool projects.

Load-bearing premise

The belief distributions formed by combining numerical simulation outputs with maximum-entropy priors over injection actions accurately represent the decision problem actually faced by operators.

What would settle it

If a real or laboratory test with known geology and isolated sites shows that risk-averse operators do not choose the coalitions predicted by the model, the claimed benefit of collaboration collapses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00859 by Per Pettersson, Sarah Gasda, Svenn Tveit.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An agent can choose between random options [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Risk behavior in terms of quantile preferences can be applied to negative payoffs such as leakage, or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) An arbitrary permeability realisation for the Utsira formation; well locations for Case I agents (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimated marginal PDFs for the maximum individual injection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variability in the agents’ contributions to total maximum CO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic depiction of the ranges of the belief distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PDFs for the total maximum injection Y , and utopian injections of the agents one-by-one (a). Maximum and belief distributions for total injections (b). 6 Discussion and outlook Next we discuss some selected topics in more detail, with focus both on limitations, how to overcome them, and possible extensions. 6.1 Extensions with respect to related game models In previous work on deterministic cooperative ga… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Estimated marginal PDFs for the allocations of payoffs as mean-weighted fractions of total injection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With an increasing number of prospective geological CO$_2$ storage projects and potential pressure communication between different projects, risk sharing under uncertain geological conditions are relevant to many project operators. In this work, the project operators are modeled as agents in a stochastic cooperative game. The agents can have different risk attitudes, here defined as being willing to accept more or less uncertainty in the predicted storage of CO$_2$. This uncertainty stems from lack of knowledge of geological parameters as well as unknown future actions of competing agents, and the corresponding probability distributions need to be estimated by numerical simulation. The agents can choose to share commercial risk if collaboration is preferable to a baseline scenario of individual injection. If their operations affect each other by means of, e.g., pressure communication, there may be no unique natural definition of a baseline scenario. As a remedy, we suggest belief distributions that combine uncertainty in physical data with maximum entropy prior distributions over the sets of viable injection actions. For a realistic storage site, exemplified by the Utsira Formation in the North Sea, we present numerical results for both cases of pressure competition, and no hydraulic connections between different project operations. It is shown that risk averse agents benefit from collaboration when there is no pressure communication or other interference between agents. It is also demonstrated that pressure communication leads to large variability in the feasible injection rates, but the resulting belief distributions are nevertheless informative and useful for decision making about collaboration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper models CO2 storage project operators as agents in a stochastic cooperative game, where agents with different risk attitudes face uncertainty from geological parameters and competing actions. It proposes belief distributions that combine numerical simulations of geology with maximum-entropy priors over viable injection actions to define baselines under pressure communication. Numerical results for the Utsira Formation are presented for both pressure-communication and no-communication cases, claiming that risk-averse agents benefit from collaboration without interference and that the belief distributions remain informative for collaboration decisions despite variability under pressure communication.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work offers a useful game-theoretic framework for evaluating risk-sharing and collaboration in CO2 storage projects under geological uncertainty and potential interactions, which is relevant for operators in regions with multiple prospective sites. The combination of simulation outputs with max-ent priors to handle non-unique baselines is a constructive approach, and the realistic Utsira example provides concrete illustration. The paper does not include machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code but does supply a falsifiable modeling structure that could be tested against additional field scenarios.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section defining belief distributions and pressure-communication case] The construction of belief distributions (detailed in the section on handling pressure communication and viable actions) relies on maximum-entropy priors over sets of viable injection actions that treat actions as independent within bounds. Under pressure communication, feasible rates are interdependent, so this prior may not accurately represent the joint distribution of outcomes that operators would face; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that the distributions are nevertheless informative and useful for collaboration decisions.
  2. [Numerical results section] The numerical results for both scenarios (presented for the Utsira Formation) report outcomes without error bars, sensitivity checks on the maximum-entropy prior support, or validation against field data. This weakens the robustness of the central findings that risk-averse agents benefit from collaboration without pressure communication and that variability under communication still yields useful beliefs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'risk sharing under uncertain geological conditions are relevant' but should read 'is relevant' for subject-verb agreement.
  2. [Methods] Notation for risk-attitude parameters and the exact support of the maximum-entropy priors could be clarified with an explicit equation or table to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and for recognizing the relevance of the game-theoretic framework for CO2 storage under uncertainty. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will undertake.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section defining belief distributions and pressure-communication case] The construction of belief distributions (detailed in the section on handling pressure communication and viable actions) relies on maximum-entropy priors over sets of viable injection actions that treat actions as independent within bounds. Under pressure communication, feasible rates are interdependent, so this prior may not accurately represent the joint distribution of outcomes that operators would face; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that the distributions are nevertheless informative and useful for collaboration decisions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this subtlety in the prior construction. The independent maximum-entropy prior over viable actions is selected precisely because no joint information on competitors' choices is available; it supplies the least-committal distribution consistent with the known physical bounds on injection rates. While pressure communication does induce interdependence, the resulting marginal belief distributions still capture the full range of feasible outcomes and permit direct comparison of individual versus collaborative risk for agents with different attitudes. We will revise the section to add an explicit discussion of the independence assumption, its motivation, and its limitations, including a qualitative assessment of how correlation would narrow the joint support while preserving the informativeness of the marginals for the collaboration decision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical results section] The numerical results for both scenarios (presented for the Utsira Formation) report outcomes without error bars, sensitivity checks on the maximum-entropy prior support, or validation against field data. This weakens the robustness of the central findings that risk-averse agents benefit from collaboration without pressure communication and that variability under communication still yields useful beliefs.

    Authors: We agree that the numerical results would be strengthened by additional robustness measures. In the revised manuscript we will attach error bars derived from the ensemble of geological-parameter realizations already generated by the flow simulations. We will also conduct and report sensitivity checks on the support of the maximum-entropy priors by varying the upper and lower bounds on viable injection rates and confirming that the qualitative conclusions—benefit of collaboration without communication and retained usefulness of the beliefs under communication—remain unchanged. Direct validation against field data on collaborative operations with pressure communication is not currently possible, as no such multi-operator projects have yet been executed; the Utsira example relies on published geological data and established simulation models. We will clarify this limitation and the illustrative, falsifiable character of the results in the discussion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Belief distributions constructed from external numerical simulations plus standard maximum-entropy priors; no derivation reduces to fitted inputs or self-citation by construction

full rationale

The paper's core construction combines geological parameter uncertainty (from numerical simulation of the Utsira Formation) with maximum-entropy priors over viable injection actions. This is an explicit modeling choice, not a self-definition or fitted prediction. No equation or claim equates a derived quantity to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation of an unverified uniqueness result. The no-communication and pressure-communication cases are compared directly against these externally grounded distributions, keeping the derivation self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that agents can be modeled as players in a stochastic cooperative game whose payoffs are defined by simulated storage volumes, that maximum-entropy priors over injection actions are the appropriate way to encode strategic uncertainty, and that risk attitudes can be parameterized by tolerance to variance in storage outcomes.

free parameters (2)
  • risk-attitude parameters
    Each agent is assigned a willingness to accept uncertainty in predicted storage; specific numerical values or functional forms are not stated in the abstract.
  • maximum-entropy prior support
    The set of viable injection actions over which the maximum-entropy distribution is taken is defined by the modeler and not derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Project operators behave as rational agents in a stochastic cooperative game whose payoffs depend on uncertain geological parameters and competitors' actions.
    Core modeling choice stated in the abstract; no independent justification supplied.
  • domain assumption Maximum-entropy distributions over injection schedules are the appropriate representation of strategic uncertainty when no unique baseline exists.
    Introduced as a remedy for the lack of a natural baseline scenario.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1603 out tokens · 53518 ms · 2026-05-10T01:30:43.392791+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stochastic cooperative games: Theory and applications

    P. Borm and J. Suijs. “Stochastic cooperative games: Theory and applications” . In: Chapters in Game Theory: In honor of Stef Tijs . Springer, 2002, pp. 1–26

    2002

  2. [2]

    Prior Solutions: Extensions of Convex Nucleus Solutions to Chance-Constrained Games

    A. Charnes and D. Granot. “Prior Solutions: Extensions of Convex Nucleus Solutions to Chance-Constrained Games. ” In:Proceedings of the Computer Science and Statistics Seventh Symposium at Iowa State University . 1973, pp. 323–332

    1973

  3. [3]

    Chen and S

    J. Chen and S. A. Hosseini. Optimal CO 2 storage management considering safety constraints in multi- stakeholder multi-site CCS projects: a game theoretic perspective . 2025. arXiv: 2508.11618 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Chiles and P

    J.-P. Chiles and P. Delfiner. Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty . John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    CO2LOGIX: A first-order model of pressure- constrained CO 2 geological storage growth at the basin scale

    I. de Jonge-Anderson, G. Johnson, J. Alcalde, and J. J. Roberts. “CO2LOGIX: A first-order model of pressure- constrained CO 2 geological storage growth at the basin scale” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 151 (2026), p. 104608. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2026.104608

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2026.104608 2026

  6. [6]

    Technical Note—Robust Newsvendor Games with Ambiguity in Demand Distributions

    X. V. Doan and T.-D. Nguyen. “Technical Note—Robust Newsvendor Games with Ambiguity in Demand Distributions” . In: Operations Research 68.4 (2020), pp. 1047–1062. doi: 10.1287/opre.2019.1955 . eprint: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2019.1955

    work page doi:10.1287/opre.2019.1955 2020

  7. [7]

    F. Y. Edgeworth. Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences . Vol. 10. Kegan Paul, 1881

  8. [8]

    New approach to the design of multifactor experiments

    V. Eglajs and P. Audze. “New approach to the design of multifactor experiments” . In: Problems of Dynamics and Strengths 35.1 (1977), pp. 104–107

    1977

  9. [9]

    A workflow for estimating injection pressure limits for CO 2 storage: A reservoir-geomechanical analysis of a candidate site in the German North Sea sector

    F. Gasanzade, H. D. B. Aji, F. Wuttke, and S. Bauer. “A workflow for estimating injection pressure limits for CO 2 storage: A reservoir-geomechanical analysis of a candidate site in the German North Sea sector” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 149 (2026), p. 104534. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104534

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104534 2026

  10. [10]

    Investigation of Caprock Integrity Due to Pressure Build-up During High-volume Injection into the Utsira Formation

    S. E. Gasda, M. Wangen, T. I. Bjørnarå, and M. T. Elenius. “Investigation of Caprock Integrity Due to Pressure Build-up During High-volume Injection into the Utsira Formation” . In: Energy Procedia 114 (2017). 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14-18 November 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 3157–3166. issn: 187...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017 2017

  11. [11]

    R. G. Ghanem and P. D. Spanos. Stochastic finite elements: a spectral approach . Springer New York, NY,

  12. [12]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3094-6 . 22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3094-6

  13. [13]

    Effective microseismic monitoring of the Quest CCS site, Alberta, Canada

    B. P. Goertz-Allmann, N. Langet, K. Iranpour, D. Kühn, A. Baird, S. Oates, C. Rowe, et al. “Effective microseismic monitoring of the Quest CCS site, Alberta, Canada” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 133 (2024), p. 104100. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104100

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104100 2024

  14. [14]

    Cooperative Games in Stochastic Characteristic Function Form

    D. Granot. “Cooperative Games in Stochastic Characteristic Function Form” . In: Management Science 23.6 (1977), pp. 621–630. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.23.6.621

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.23.6.621 1977

  15. [15]

    Rules for ordering uncertain prospects

    J. Hadar and W. R. Russell. “Rules for ordering uncertain prospects” . In: American Economic Review 59.1 (1969), pp. 25–34

    1969

  16. [16]

    E. K. Halland, A. Bjørnestad, C. Magnus, F. Riis, I. M. Meling, I. T. Gjeldvik, I. M. Tappel, et al. CO2 Storage Atlas - Norwegian Continental Shelf . Tech. rep. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    Spatiotemporal Shapley value-based pressure signal decomposition for enhanced geological carbon sequestration monitoring under uncertainty

    J. L. Hernandez-Mejia and M. J. Pyrcz. “Spatiotemporal Shapley value-based pressure signal decomposition for enhanced geological carbon sequestration monitoring under uncertainty” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 143 (2025), p. 104356. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc. 2025.104356

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc 2025

  18. [18]

    F. Hiebert. Insurance Coverage for CO 2 Storage Projects . Tech. rep. IEAGHG, 2024. doi: doi . org / 10 . 62849/2024-TR04

    2024

  19. [19]

    Effect of tem- perature and concentration of impurities in the fluid stream on CO 2 migration in the Utsira formation

    E. Hodneland, S. Gasda, R. Kaufmann, T. C. Bekkvik, C. Hermanrud, and K. Midttømme. “Effect of tem- perature and concentration of impurities in the fluid stream on CO 2 migration in the Utsira formation” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 83 (2019), pp. 20–28. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https : //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.01.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.01.020 2019

  20. [20]

    Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2022

  21. [21]

    Kirby, R

    G. Kirby, R. Chadwick, and S. Holloway. Depth mapping and characterisation of the Utsira Sand Saline Aquifer, Northern North Sea . British Geological Survey Commissioned Report CR/01/218, 2001

    2001

  22. [22]

    A constraint handling approach for the differential evolution algorithm

    J. Lampinen. “A constraint handling approach for the differential evolution algorithm” . In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC’02 (Cat. No.02TH8600) . Vol. 2. 2002, 1468–1473 vol.2. doi: 10.1109/CEC.2002.1004459

    work page doi:10.1109/cec.2002.1004459 2002

  23. [23]

    Maschler, S

    M. Maschler, S. Zamir, and E. Solan. Game theory . Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variable in the analysis of output from a computer code

    M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover. “Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variable in the analysis of output from a computer code” . In: Technometrics 21.2 (1979)

    1979

  25. [25]

    The pressure balancing act in geological storage: sharing the subsurface for the common good

    A. Ougier-Simonin, O. Tucker, A. Bump, S. E. Gasda, R. E. Otterlei, A. Lemgruber-Traby, E. Mackay, et al. “The pressure balancing act in geological storage: sharing the subsurface for the common good” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 151 (2026), p. 104610. issn: 1750-5836. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2026.104610

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2026.104610 2026

  26. [26]

    Cooperative games defined by multi-objective optimization in competition for subsurface resources

    P. Pettersson, S. Krumscheid, and S. Gasda. “Cooperative games defined by multi-objective optimization in competition for subsurface resources” . In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19987 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Multi-objective optimization for multi-agent injection strategies in subsurface CO2 storage

    P. Pettersson, S. Krumscheid, and S. Gasda. “Multi-objective optimization for multi-agent injection strategies in subsurface CO2 storage” . In:ECMOR 2024. Vol. 2024. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. 2024, pp. 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202437062

    work page doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202437062 2024

  28. [28]

    Dynamic estimates of extreme-case CO 2 storage capacity for basin-scale heterogeneous systems under geological uncertainty

    P. Pettersson, S. Tveit, and S. E. Gasda. “Dynamic estimates of extreme-case CO 2 storage capacity for basin-scale heterogeneous systems under geological uncertainty” . In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 116 (2022), p. 103613

    2022

  29. [29]

    A Unified Differential Evolution Algorithm for Global Optimization

    J. Qiang and C. Mitchell. “A Unified Differential Evolution Algorithm for Global Optimization” . In: IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. (June 2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Turner, J

    A. F. Rasmussen, T. H. Sandve, K. Bao, A. Lauser, J. Hove, B. Skaflestad, R. Klöfkorn, et al. “The Open Porous Media Flow reservoir simulator” . In: Comput. Math. Appl. 81 (2021), pp. 159–185. doi: 10.1016/j. camwa.2020.05.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2021

  31. [31]

    Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees

    T. Sandholm, K. Larson, M. Andersson, O. Shehory, and F. Tohmé. “Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees” . In: Artificial Intelligence 111.1 (1999), pp. 209–238. issn: 0004-3702. doi: https : //doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00036-3 . 23

    work page doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(99)00036-3 1999

  32. [32]

    Convective dissolution in field scale CO 2 storage simulations using the OPM Flow simulator

    T. H. Sandve, S. E. Gasda, A. Rasmussen, and A. B. Rustad. “Convective dissolution in field scale CO 2 storage simulations using the OPM Flow simulator” . In: TCCS–11. CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage. Trondheim 22nd–23rd June 2021 Short Papers from the 11th International Trondheim CCS Conference . SINTEF Academic Press, 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    L. J. Savage. The foundations of statistics . John Wiley & Sons, 1954

    1954

  34. [34]

    CO2 Injection in a Saline Formation: Pre-Injection Reservoir Modeling and Un- certainty Analysis for Illinois Basin – Decatur Project

    O. Senel and N. Chugunov. “CO2 Injection in a Saline Formation: Pre-Injection Reservoir Modeling and Un- certainty Analysis for Illinois Basin – Decatur Project” . In: Energy Procedia 37 (2013). GHGT-11 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 18-22 November 2012, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 4598–4611. issn: 1876-6102...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.368 2013

  35. [35]

    Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Directive 65: Application for a CO 2 Acid Gas Storage Scheme

    Shell Canada Limited. Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Directive 65: Application for a CO 2 Acid Gas Storage Scheme. Tech. rep. Application to construct, operate and reclaim the Quest CCS Project. Calgary, AB: Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) of Alberta, 2010. url: https://open.alberta.ca

    2010

  36. [36]

    Celestial Mechan- ics and Dynamical Astronomy83, 155–169 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1020143116091

    R. Storn and K. Price. “Differential Evolution - A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces” . In: Journal of Global Optimization 11 (Jan. 1997), pp. 341–359. doi: 10.1023/A: 1008202821328

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 1997

  37. [37]

    Stochastic Cooperative Games: Superadditivity, Convexity, and Certainty Equivalents

    J. Suijs and P. Borm. “Stochastic Cooperative Games: Superadditivity, Convexity, and Certainty Equivalents” . In: Games and Economic Behavior 27.2 (1999), pp. 331–345. issn: 0899-8256. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1006/game.1998.0672

    work page arXiv 1999

  38. [38]

    Cooperative games with stochastic payoffs

    J. Suijs, P. Borm, A. De Waegenaere, and S. Tijs. “Cooperative games with stochastic payoffs” . In: European Journal of Operational Research 113.1 (1999), pp. 193–205. issn: 0377-2217. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0377-2217(97)00421-9

    1999

  39. [39]

    E., et al

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, et al. “SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python” . In: Nature Methods 17 (2020), pp. 261–272. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  40. [40]

    A Game Theoretic Approach to Conflicting and Evolving Stakeholder Preferences in the E&P Industry

    B. J. A. Willigers, R. B. Bratvold, and K. Hausken. “A Game Theoretic Approach to Conflicting and Evolving Stakeholder Preferences in the E&P Industry” . In: SPE Economics & Management 1.01 (Oct. 2009), pp. 19–

    2009

  41. [41]

    doi: 10.2118/124178-PA

    issn: 2150-1173. doi: 10.2118/124178-PA

    work page doi:10.2118/124178-pa

  42. [42]

    Global geologic carbon storage requirements of climate change mitigation scenar- ios

    C. Zahasky and S. Krevor. “Global geologic carbon storage requirements of climate change mitigation scenar- ios” . In: Energy & Environmental Science 13.6 (2020), pp. 1561–1567. 24

    2020