Possible Effects of Multiphase Methane Evolution During a Glacial Cycle on Underpressure Development in Sedimentary Basins: An Analysis With Application to the Northeast Michigan Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In low‐permeability systems, groundwater may be accompanied by separate‐phase fluids, and measured pore water pressures may deviate from those expected in steady‐state, single‐phase systems. These same systems may be of interest for storage of nuclear waste in Deep Geologic Repositories. Therefore, it is important to understand the relationship between the presence of a separate phase and anomalous pressure development. At the Bruce site in Southern Ontario, a significant underpressure was observed, and there is evidence for the presence of gas‐phase methane in situ. This study used a one‐dimensional (vertical) numerical model of the subsurface down to a depth of 844 m beneath the Bruce site to evaluate possible effects of hydromechanical coupling with multiphase flow on pressure evolution during glacial loading and unloading. The simulated pressure conditions were affected strongly by the amount of methane initially present in the system, and the maximum simulated underpressure varied nonmonotonically with increasing initial methane content. When the initial methane content was below the solubility limit, exsolution led to underpressures that briefly exceeded those that formed in the single‐phase case. At intermediate initial methane contents (sufficient to produce an immobile gas phase), the gas phase dampened the hydromechanical effects of the glacial cycle. At large initial methane contents (when a mobile gas phase was present), gas migration caused a large decrease in relative liquid permeability, which further contributed to underpressure development in the pore water. Multiple scenarios that spanned a range of initial methane contents yielded underpressures like those observed at the Bruce site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".