Sandstone Reservoir Characterization and Its Capacity for Subsurface CO2 Capture and Storage: A Case Study of the Black Island Member of the Winnipeg Formation, Southeastern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing CO2 emission from fossil fuels is crucial for the global aim of constraining greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere and the consequent adverse impact of the rising global temperature. One prominent approach for reducing the CO2 influx concerns capturing and storing CO2 in subterranean reservoirs. The properties of deep subsurface reservoirs that are appropriate for storing gasses require extensive scrutiny, including (i) the assessment of their reservoir characteristics, (ii) examinations of the nature of the caprock, and (iii) continuous monitoring of the movement of injected gas plumes. The sedimentary strata of Saskatchewan contains a number of reservoirs that are potentially good for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The Late Ordovician Winnipeg Formation in Southern Saskatchewan constitutes a lower highly porous sandstone unit of the Black Island Member. Volumetric calculations of the Storage Space Capacity Potential of the sandstone indicate a subterraneous 974 km3 pore space. The porous sandstone unit is capped by a shale unit (Icebox Member). Thus, juxtaposition of these two lithologies makes the formation an excellent candidate for CCS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".