MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082950497 · doi:10.2118/138178-ms

Characterization of Leakage through Cap-Rock with Application to CO2 Storage in Aquifers - Single Injector and Single Monitoring Well

2010· article· en· W2082950497 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Zeidouni, M. Pooladi‐Darvish

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAquiferPetroleum engineeringLeakage (economics)Seal (emblem)GeologyFossil fuelSpecific storageEnvironmental scienceInjectorWater wellGroundwaterSoil sciencePetrologyGeotechnical engineeringWaste managementEngineeringGroundwater recharge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The geological storage of carbon dioxide provides the possibility of maintaining access to fossil energy, while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. One of the essential concerns in geologic storage is the risk of CO2 leakage from the storage formations. Leakage occurs through possible pathways in the seal, which include a) transmissive faults, b) abandoned wells (penetrating the entire seal or part of it), c) active wells that partially penetrate the seal, d) and local seal weakness and fractures. CO2 leakage to the subsurface formations can adversely affect the existing and potential energy and mineral resources and shallow ground water resources and soils. As such, detection and characterization of CO2 leakage pathways from storage formations into overlying formations is necessary. The target aquifer could be tested for the leakage pathways before CO2 storage. This will allow for the determination of proper storage aquifers and locations for the injection wells. In this work, we suggest a flow and pressure test and present an inverse methodology to detect and characterize leakage pathways based on the pressure data. The flow test is based on the injection (or production) of water into (or from) a storage aquifer at a constant rate. The pressure is measured at a monitoring well in an aquifer overlying the storage aquifer, which is separated by an aquitard. The objective of the test is to locate and characterize any leakage through the separating aquitard. The interpretation method is based on forward and inverse solutions of a new analytical model presented in an earlier work. We present an inverse procedure to obtain the leakage pathway transmissibility and location, based on the pressure measurements in an observation well completed in the monitoring aquifer. Inversion analysis is utilized to evaluate the capability of leakage parameters’ estimation through pressure monitoring.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207