Investigation of CO <sub>2</sub> storage in a saline formation with an angular unconformity at the caprock interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of oil reservoirs show that unconformities may occur between the reservoir and the caprock. At the boundary where the unconformity occurs, there may be a layer of higher permeability compared to the caprock. Such traps may occur at CO 2 storage sites and, therefore, their effect should be investigated. In this work, we simulate CO 2 storage beneath angular unconformities, where sandstone layers have been tilted and eroded prior to the deposition of a caprock. After preliminary studies into the effect of gridding such traps, we describe simulations of a range of 2D and 3D models. The results reveal that migration of CO 2 is influenced by the lithology beneath the unconformity, which could have been modified by weathering or diagenesis. This can have both positive and negative effects on the CO 2 storage capacity and security. It shows that an unconformity model that has a layer of high permeability at the interface between the aquifer and the caprock, as a result of weathering or diagenesis, can contribute to pressure diffusion across the reservoir. This could improve CO 2 sequestration by providing pathways for CO 2 migration to access other parts of the storage complex. However, this could also have a negative effect on the security of CO 2 storage by providing pathways for CO 2 to migrate out of the storage formation and so increase the risk of CO 2 leakage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".