MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W142669597 · doi:10.2172/1016981

Comparison of the Wymark CO2 Reservoir with the Midale Beds at the Weyburn CO2 Injection Project

2010· report· en· W142669597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frederick J. Ryerson, James W. Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnhydriteDolomiteGeologyCarbonateCalciteEvaporiteLithologyGeochemistryPyriteMineralCarbonate mineralsDevonianMineralogyAnkeriteDiagenesisCarbonate rockSedimentary depositional environmentDolostoneGypsumSedimentary rockSideritePaleontologyStructural basinChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Devonian carbonates of the Duperow Formation on the western flank of the Williston Basin in southwest Saskatchewan contain natural accumulations of CO{sub 2}, and may have done so for as long as 50 m.y. in the views of some investigations. These carbonate sediments are characterized by a succession of carbonate cycles capped by anhydrite-rich evaporites that are thought to act as seals to fluid migration. The Weyburn CO{sub 2} injection site lies 400 km to the east in a series of Mississippian carbonates that were deposited in a similar depositional environment. That natural CO{sub 2} can be stored long-term within carbonate strata has motivated the investigation of the Duperow rocks as a potential natural analogue to storage of anthropogenic CO{sub 2} that may ultimately provide additional confidence for CO{sub 2} sequestration in carbonate lithologies. For the Duperow strata to represent a legitimate analog for Midale injection and storage, the similarity in lithofacies, whole rock compositions, mineral compositions and porosity with the Midale Beds must be established. Previous workers have demonstrated the similarity of the lithofacies at both sites. Here we compare the whole rock compositions, mineralogy and mineral compositions. The major mineral phases at both locales are calcite, dolomite and anhydrite. In addition, accessory pyrite, fluorite and celestine are also observed. The distribution of porosity in the Midale Vuggy units is virtually identical to that of the Duperow Formation, but the Marly units of the Midale have significantly higher porosity. The Duperow Formation is topped by the Dinesmore evaporite that is particularly rich in anhydrite, and often contains authigenic K-feldspar. The chemistry of dolomite and calcite from the two localities also overlaps. Silicate minerals are in low abundance within the analyzed Duperow samples, < 3 wt% on a normative basis, with quartz the only phase identifiable in x-ray diffraction patterns. The Midale Beds contain significantly higher silica/silicate concentrations, but the silicate minerals observed, K-feldspar and quartz, are unlikely to participate in carbonate mineral precipitation due to the absence of alkaline earths. Hence, physical and solution trapping are likely to be the primary trapping mechanisms at both sites. Given the similarity of mineral constituents, whole rock and mineral chemistry, reactive transport models developed for the Weyburn site should also be applicable to the Duperow lithologies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207