Carbon dioxide sequestration in underground formations: review of experimental, modeling, and field studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbon dioxide has gradually found widespread usage in the field of science and engineering while various efforts have focused on ways to combat the menace resulting from the release of this compound in the atmosphere. A major approach to combating this release is by storage in various geological formations ranging from depleted reservoir types such as saline aquifers to other carbon sinks. In this research study, we reviewed the experimental, modeling, and field studies related to the underground storage of CO 2 . A considerable amount of research has been conducted in simulating and modeling CO 2 sequestration in the subsurface. This review highlights some of the latest contributions. Additionally, the impact of CO 2 sequestration on its surroundings due to chemical reactions, adsorption, capillarity, hysteresis, and wettability were reviewed. Some major challenges associated with CO 2 injection have also been highlighted. Finally, this work presents a brief history of selected field scale projects such as Sleipner, Weyburn, In Salah, Otway Basin, Snøhvit, Alberta, Boundary Dam, Cranfield, and Ketzin. Thus, this study provides a guide of the CO 2 storage process from the perspectives of experimental, modelling, and existing field studies.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it