MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415938762 · doi:10.2118/229163-ms

Validating Plume Predictions with Insights from A Decade of MMV from an Active CO2 Injection Site

2025· article· W4415938762 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alireza Rangriz Shokri, Marziyeh Kamali, Zeinab Movahedzadeh, Norm Sacuta, Erik Nickel, Rick Chalaturnyk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Research CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeCalibrationBenchmark (surveying)Noise (video)Seismic inversionFlow (mathematics)Data acquisition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dynamic model calibration is key to addressing geological complexities, ultimately providing valuable insights for optimizing storage efficiency in CCS projects. This paper aims to validate CO2 plume predictions through a decade of monitoring, measurement, and verification (MMV) at an active CO2 injection site in Canada. It examines the integration of geological and flow models with seismic data from the Aquistore project to refine plume predictive accuracy and enhance long-term monitoring strategies. We used geological modeling, flow simulations, and seismic monitoring to validate CO2 plume predictions at Aquistore. The geological model was constructed using seismic, log, and core data, incorporating key storage and sealing formations. Flow simulations were calibrated using ten years of injection data, capturing geological uncertainties. Multiple seismic surveys provided plume migration insights, with noise filtering and amplitude analysis refining detection accuracy. Dynamic model calibration incorporated reservoir heterogeneity, ensuring accurate plume representation. These findings reinforce the effectiveness of selected MMV strategies in optimizing CCS operations and establishing a benchmark for future CO2 storage projects. The process of analyzing seismic acquisition data for CO2 plume detection was complex, requiring background noise exclusion and applying a defined threshold to amplitude difference maps. This method enabled the delineation of the main plume outline. This study confirms that geological heterogeneity, structural flexure, and variable reservoir properties influence CO2 plume migration at Aquistore. Time-lapse seismic monitoring revealed that plume expansion was non-uniform across perforated intervals, reflecting differences in saturation and thickness. Refining the geological and flow models with seismic inversion data improved predictive accuracy, transitioning from a simple layer-cake assumption to one that incorporated geological complexities, such as structural flexure and reservoir heterogeneity. Observations confirm that selected MMV strategies effectively track plume behavior, demonstrating the value of 4D seismic in model validation. Calibrated model iterations strengthen confidence in CO2 storage safety and efficacy. Ultimately, field observations and modeling results underscore the importance of integrating continuous monitoring with adaptive modeling approaches to optimize injection strategies, minimize uncertainties, and ensure long-term CO2 containment in saline aquifers. This paper offers novel insights by integrating long-term CO2 plume monitoring with advanced seismic techniques, enhancing predictive accuracy in geological storage. It advances the existing MMV methodologies through demonstrating real-time calibration of flow models. These findings play a crucial role in optimizing storage strategies, mitigating uncertainties, and improving monitoring frameworks for future CCS projects, ensuring safe and efficient long-term CO2 sequestration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207