A preliminary assessment of carbon storage suitability in deep underground geological formations of New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment of the surface and subsurface geology in New Brunswick has identified several regions, close to Large Final Emitters (industrial sites releasing carbon dioxide, CO2, into the atmosphere), underlain by large volumes of various sedimentary rocks that could act as either the reservoir or seal in a carbon storage operation. There is a lack of subsurface data with which to make an assessment for the New Brunswick Platform, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Northumberland Strait. In the Moncton Basin, the McCully Gas Field is hosted in tight gas sands where it would be difficult to pump down CO2 at an economical rate. The Stoney Creek Oil and Gas Field south of Moncton is not at sufficient depth for CO2 to be in a supercritical state, necessary for compressed storage. Saline reservoirs could underlie suitably large areas around these fields, but again there is limited information on the quality of the potential reservoir rock. In the Bay of Fundy, south of Saint John, one borehole indicates a prospective location that includes a saline reservoir with suitable thickness and wireline-calculated porosity and permeability, a seal with suitable thickness, and limited faulting to potentially compartmentalize the reservoir or, conversely, compromise the continuity of the seal. The major uncertainty is trap volume, which is particularly difficult to assess based on the borehole being the only data point within a 50 km radius. This is also an environmentally sensitive offshore area. Until data deficiencies are addressed, no locations can be recommended for carbon storage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".