BSMP Subsurface Simulation Engine — Results
Bio-Responsive Subsurface Manufacturing Platformgenerated 2026-06-24T00:25:52
One platform (apical extension · scaffold-directed mineralisation · synthetic-biology kill-switch) applied to four subsurface categories. Oil-sands economics are validated cell-for-cell against OilSands_TechnoEconomic_Model.xlsx; the engine adds the rate/throughput→NPV lever the workbook omits.
Shared platform process
Cross-category headline
1 · In-Situ Oil Sands (validated)
Scenario A (scaffold-enhanced SAGD) cuts SOR 3.0->2.1 = -30% energy & CO2 (63->44 kg/bbl) at ~break-even margin ($-0.90/bbl) -- decided by scaffold reagent cost. The big unmodeled upside is RATE: ~2.0x near-well productivity lifts well NPV $-1M->$2M. ISC+CCS reaches -90% energy / -76% CO2.
Scenario table
| Scenario | Energy vs SAGD | CO2 vs SAGD | $/bbl margin |
|---|
| SAGD (reference) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| A: Scaffold-enhanced SAGD | -30.0% | -30.0% | -0.9 |
| C: In-situ combustion | -90.0% | 3.2% | -8.56 |
| C+CCS: ISC + CO2 sequestration | -90.0% | -76.0% | -7.81 |
Swing variable & the rate lever
Chemical-heat reality check
| Heat source | $/GJ | CO2 kg/GJ | × vs gas |
|---|
| Natural gas (via steam) | 3.06 | 58.7 | 1.0 |
| H2O2 decomposition | 346.3 | 692.5 | 113.2 |
| NaNO2/NH4Cl | 146.7 | 550.1 | 48.0 |
| Metric | Baseline | BSMP | Unit | Improvement |
|---|
| Steam-to-oil ratio (SOR) | 3.00 | 2.10 | - | +30% |
| Purchased energy | 1.26 | 0.88 | GJ/bbl | +30% |
| Scope-1 CO2 | 62.90 | 44.03 | kg/bbl | +30% |
| Incremental margin vs SAGD | 0.00 | -0.90 | $/bbl | ∞ |
| Near-well permeability | 5,000.00 | 5,644,531.25 | mD | +112791% |
| Initial well rate (rate lever) | 600.00 | 1,172.29 | bbl/d | +95% |
| Well NPV (rate lever) | -1.03 | 2.17 | $M | +311% |
| Mechanical sand control | 1 | 0 | screens needed (1/0) | +100% |
2 · Virtual-agent reservoir simulation
Coupled 1-D radial agents: scaffold front, fixed-bed reaction heat, radial diffusion, and the Boolean kill-switch reacting to a simulated aquifer leak.
| grid_cells | 60 |
| sim_days | 90.0 |
| scaffold_front_final_m | 20.0 |
| reaction_front_final_m | 13.9 |
| mobilized_fraction_% | 48.3 |
| peak_T_C | 249.7 |
| leak_triggered_day | 45.0 |
| contained | True |
| containment_radius_m | 14.3 |
3 · Monte-Carlo (uncertainty on the assumptions)
| n | 5000 |
| scenarioA_margin_$/bbl | {'P10': -7.97, 'P50': -2.23, 'P90': 2.1} |
| prob_margin_positive | 0.28 |
| well_NPV_uplift_$M | {'P10': 3.09, 'P50': 3.13, 'P90': 3.15} |
4 · Hydraulic Fracturing (shale oil & gas)
Apical tip-extension cuts pump energy 42% and the strut lattice props 100% of the fracture (vs 40%), lifting EUR ~30% and NPV $8.2M -> $21.5M, with zero mined sand.
| Metric | Baseline | BSMP | Unit | Improvement |
|---|
| Propped fracture coverage | 40.00 | 100.00 | % | +150% |
| Proppant-pack permeability | 0.00 | 0.00 | mD | +300% |
| Estimated ultimate recovery | 100.00 | 130.00 | % of base | +30% |
| Pump (HHP) energy | 60.00 | 34.80 | GJ/well | +42% |
| Mined sand proppant | 5,000.00 | 0.00 | t/well | +100% |
| Well NPV | 8.20 | 21.50 | $M | +162% |
economics
| EUR_uplift_% | 30.0 |
| revenue_uplift_$M | 12.6 |
| capex_saving_$M | 0.7 |
| NPV_baseline_$M | 8.2 |
| NPV_bsmp_$M | 21.5 |
| NPV_uplift_$M | 13.3 |
5 · Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)
Ceramic open-cell lattice lifts sweep 55->85% and cuts parasitic 20->12% (defeats thermal short-circuiting): net generation +70%, LCOE $0.084->$0.055/kWh, NPV $-20M->$7M (marginal -> profitable).
| Metric | Baseline | BSMP | Unit | Improvement |
|---|
| Net annual generation | 73,233.60 | 124,497.12 | MWh/yr | +70% |
| LCOE | 84.44 | 54.84 | $/MWh | +35% |
| Sweep efficiency (anti short-circuit) | 55.00 | 85.00 | % | +55% |
| Parasitic pump load | 20.00 | 12.00 | % | +40% |
| Heat-exchange surface area | 1.00 | 9.07 | x (relative) | +807% |
| Project NPV | -20.15 | 7.23 | $M | +136% |
economics
| scenarios | {'Conventional EGS (planar fractures)': {'scenario': 'Conventional EGS (planar fractures)', 'net_MWh_yr': 73234.0, 'LCOE_$/kWh': 0.0844, 'CAPEX_$M': 48.0, 'NPV_$M': -20.1}, 'BSMP ceramic-lattice EGS': {'scenario': 'BSMP ceramic-lattice EGS', 'net_MWh_yr': 124497.0, 'LCOE_$/kWh': 0.0548, 'CAPEX_$M': 53.0, 'NPV_$M': 7.2}} |
| capex | {'total_$M': 128.0, 'breakdown_$M': {'drilling_and_stimulation': 48.0, 'surface_power_plant': 70.0, 'scaffold_program': 10.0}} |
| drivers | sweep efficiency (short-circuit) + parasitic load; LCOE/NPV computed first-principles |
| note | Illustrative first-principles inputs (editable); not validated against an external workbook. |
6 · Carbon Sequestration (geologic CCS)
Open-cell strut-only mineralisation defeats pore-plugging -> ~3x injectivity (12->4 wells, -$52M capex); kill-switch containment cuts Class VI permitting 24 months -> NPV $3586M->$4423M via fewer wells + earlier 45Q.
| Metric | Baseline | BSMP | Unit | Improvement |
|---|
| Injectivity / volume per well | 1.00 | 3.00 | x (relative) | +200% |
| Injection wells for hub | 12 | 4 | wells | +67% |
| Project CAPEX | 151.00 | 99.00 | $M | +34% |
| Levelized cost of storage | 14.22 | 13.45 | $/t | +5% |
| Class VI permitting time | 36.00 | 12.00 | months | +67% |
| Project NPV | 3,586.04 | 4,422.81 | $M | +23% |
economics
| scenarios | {'Conventional Class VI CCS': {'scenario': 'Conventional Class VI CCS', 'wells': 12, 'CAPEX_$M': 151.0, 'LCOS_$/t': 14.22, 'net_value_$/t': 70.78, 'permit_months': 36.0, 'NPV_$M': 3586.0}, 'BSMP open-cell + kill-switch CCS': {'scenario': 'BSMP open-cell + kill-switch CCS', 'wells': 4, 'CAPEX_$M': 99.0, 'LCOS_$/t': 13.45, 'net_value_$/t': 71.55, 'permit_months': 12.0, 'NPV_$M': 4422.8}} |
| capex_saving_$M | 52.0 |
| permit_months_saved | 24.0 |
| npv_uplift_$M | 836.8 |
| annual_45Q_$M | 850.0 |
| drivers | sustained injectivity (anti pore-plug) -> fewer wells; kill-switch -> faster permit -> earlier 45Q |
| note | Illustrative first-principles inputs (editable); not validated against an external workbook. |
Methodology & honest limits
Order-of-magnitude techno-economics (±30–50%), not a reservoir simulation. Oil-sands scenarios reproduce the validated workbook exactly. Key honest findings carried through: (1) the ~2.9 GJ/m³ heat floor must come from somewhere; (2) the realistic win is SOR reduction, not bulk chemical heat (H₂O₂ ~113×, nitrite ~48× gas $/GJ → targeted/pulsed duty only); (3) economics hinge on scaffold reagent cost (positive <~$6/bbl, negative >~$9/bbl); (4) ISC+CCS is the only dual low-energy/low-carbon path; (5) the rate/throughput→NPV lever (added here) is likely the biggest upside. Reagent prices & embodied-CO₂ are flagged assumptions — verify before quoting dollar figures. Geothermal & CCS use [BIZ] targets with computed supporting physics. Not investment advice.