Feasibility study of underground CO2 storage through Water Alternative Gas (WAG) operation: A case study in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geological CO 2 storage (GCS) offers a promising, low-risk, long-term solution for carbon sequestration . This study assesses the feasibility of GCS water-alternating-gas (WAG) operations in a brine formation targeted for the Western Ontario GCS plan. The Cambrian strata shows potential for CO 2 storage but faces challenges like limited lateral extension and geopolitical issues from plume migration. To mitigate these risks, a deep evaluation of CO 2 trapping mechanisms is crucial. CO 2 dissolution into brine provides secure storage by reducing the free plume. The proposed WAG operation promotes dissolution, using a vertical equilibrium model coupled with a black oil model to estimate CO 2 trapping proportions during and post-injection. The Taguchi design of experiments investigates various WAG scenarios with minimal simulations, reducing numerical costs. Sensitivity analysis/optimization of WAG parameters, including water extraction rate (WER), water injection rate (WIT), and CO 2 injection time (CIT), ranked their effectiveness in CO 2 dissolution. Optimal WAG operations can reduce the free plume by 49 % and increase the dissolution ratio from 0.26 to 0.52. CIT and WIT were found to be the most influential factors, contributing 42 % and 31 % to CO 2 dissolution, and 43 % and 34 % to overall CO 2 trapping, respectively, while WER exhibited a lower impact of 8–9%.
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) | 0.004 | 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".