Sensitivity of seismic response for monitoring storage in a low porosity reservoir of the St Lawrence Lowlands, Québec, Canada: Part 1 – Laboratory measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deployment of carbon capture and storage on a large scale poses many challenges. One is the availability of reservoirs with suitable characteristics (high porosity and permeability, matched large emitters, etc.). Such a challenge might lead to the selection of reservoirs with relatively low porosity. In those environments, the rock matrix is often stiff and questions arise regarding the capabilities of seismic methods to monitor injection. In this paper, a series of ultrasonic measurements were performed under various pressure and temperature conditions to test the seismic response of two low‐porosity reservoir samples of the St Lawrence Lowlands sedimentary basin to different phases. Results show that the P‐wave velocity and amplitude can be used to detect the phase transition. Illustrative modeling of seismic reflectivities within a hypothetical geological formation with physical properties equal to that of the St Lawrence Lowlands sedimentary basin, suggests that a liquid‐water contact is a potentially good seismic reflector. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".