Geomechanical risk assessment for CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study CO2 injection into a saline aquifer intersected by a tectonic fault using a coupled modeling approach to evaluate potential geomechanical risks. The simulation approach integrates the reservoir and mechanical simulators through a data transfer algorithm. MUFITS simulates non-isothermal multiphase flow in the reservoir, while FLAC3D calculates its mechanical equilibrium state. We accurately describe the tectonic fault, which consists of damage and core zones, and derive novel analytical closure relations governing the permeability alteration in the fault zone. We estimate the permeability of the activated fracture network in the damage zone and calculate the permeability of the main crack in the fault core, which opens on asperities due to slip. The coupled model is applied to simulate CO2 injection into synthetic and realistic reservoirs. In the synthetic reservoir model, we examine the impact of formation depth and initial tectonic stresses on geomechanical risks. Pronounced tectonic stresses lead to inelastic deformations in the fault zone. Regardless of the magnitude of tectonic stress, slip along the fault plane occurs, and the main crack in the fault core opens on asperities, causing CO2 leakage out of the storage aquifer. In the realistic reservoir model, we demonstrate that sufficiently high bottomhole pressure induces plastic deformations in the near-wellbore zone, interpreted as rock fracturing, without slippage along the fault plane. We perform a sensitivity analysis of the coupled model, varying the mechanical and flow properties of the storage layers and fault zone to assess fault stability and associated geomechanical risks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".