Feasibility Study of Time-lapse-seismic Monitoring of CO2 Sequestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background studies are made prior to the beginning of the injection to ensure the security of the geological sequestration of CO2. In the CaMI.FRS site near Brooks, Alberta, numerous wells give the information about the lithology, the porosity, the permeability, the velocities (and others parameters) of the medium. In addition to logs data, seismic surveys were conducted in order to characterize the subsurface. After acquiring well logs information and baseline seismic surveys, we applied numerical simulations in order to characterize the feasibility of the time-lapse seismic monitoring. Indeed, once the injection begins, seismic survey will be made at regular intervals to monitor the CO2 injection. Fluid simulations allow us to work on synthetic models, but yet are close to what it is expected in the reality. We use Gassmann fluid substitution to obtain the elastic parameters (VP, VS and density) at different injection times (1 year after the beginning of the injection and 1 year after the end of the injection), for a 300m depth CO2 reservoir. In those 3D models, synthetic data are generated then processed. This work give us a good approximation of the feasibility of a time-lapse seismic monitoring, considering the conditions of CaMI.FRS project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".