Geological Screening for CO<sub>2</sub> Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers in the Lower Mainland British Columbia (LMBC), Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Deep saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs are prime candidates for CO2 storage, but feasibility assessments remain limited in regions with little oil and gas activity, such as the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (LMBC), Canada. This study evaluates the CO2 storage potential of the Georgia Basin strata beneath the LMBC, focusing on three intervals (Nanaimo Group, Huntingdon Formation, and Boundary Bay Formation) in Western, Central, and Eastern LMBC. Eastern LMBC holds limited potential for CO2 storage due to both the shallow depth of strata in that region and the high geological uncertainty resulting from limited subsurface data. The Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group across the entire LMBC is unsuitable for CO2 injection because it has very poor reservoir quality (generally <1 mD permeability and <8% porosity). In contrast, the Paleogene Huntingdon Formation in Western and Central LMBC contains thick successions of reservoir‐quality rock (average thickness: 110 m, porosity: 15%), though its low permeability (≥10 mD) may restrict injection rates. Its estimated CO2 storage capacity is ∼400 Mt, making it a secondary target. The Neogene Boundary Bay Formation, also in Western and Central LMBC, offers the most favorable conditions, with higher permeability (13–67 mD), porosity (18%–21%), and thick reservoir intervals (up to 155 m). It has an estimated CO2 storage capacity of ∼430 Mt. With low fault density and minimal wellbore leakage risks, the Boundary Bay Formation and then the Huntingdon Formation below Western and Central LMBC are recommended as the primary targets for CO2 sequestration in the region.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".