MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310027127 · doi:10.1029/2022jb024719

Monitoring CO<sub>2</sub> Injection at the CaMI Field Research Station Using Microseismic Noise Sources

2022· article· en· W4310027127 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tianyang Li, Yu Jeffrey Gu, Don C. Lawton, Hersh Gilbert, Marie Macquet, Geneviève Savard, Jingchuan Wang, K. A. Innanen, Nian Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarbon Management CanadaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeophoneMicroseismNoise (video)Ambient noise levelSeismologyPassive seismicGeologyEnvironmental scienceSeismic noiseEnvironmental noiseComputer scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Monitoring subsurface velocity variations due to industrial activities using passive seismic imaging techniques has gained popularity in recent years. In this study, we examine the spatiotemporal variations of persistent, non‐ambient seismic noise during CO 2 sequestration at the Containment and Monitoring Institute Field Research Station near Brooks, Alberta, Canada. Based on the temporal migration and power spectral density (PSD) analysis of continuous seismic records from both a dense geophone array and “X”‐shaped geophone lines operated from June to August 2019, we detect two non‐ambient local noise sources correlated with the local industrial activities during the two months: a dominant noise source (1–5 Hz) southeast of the study region and a slightly weaker noise source in the higher frequency range (5–15 Hz) around the injection well. The former noise source overlaps with the operations near a submersible disposal pump. The substantial diurnal variations in noise levels in PSD as a function of time of day, month and location are further evidence of these two noise sources. We propose that the persistent noise source around the injection well originated from the subsurface microtremors caused by the coupled interaction between the injected CO 2 fluid and formation rocks. The proposed methods based on passive microseismic noise offer a potentially valuable strategy for long‐term evaluation of the safety of CO 2 sequestration, which can be extended to future integrity monitoring of underground energy storage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207