Table 1. Pressure, temperature and isotope ratios between H2O and CO2 for all experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the application of stable isotopes in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects has focused on d13C values of CO2 to trace the migration of injected CO2 in the subsurface. More recently the use of d18O values of both CO2 and reservoir fluids has been proposed as a method for quantifying in situ CO2 reservoir saturations due to O isotope exchange between CO2 and H2O and subsequent changes in d18OH2O values in the presence of high concentrations of CO2. To verify that O isotope exchange between CO2 and H2O reaches equilibrium within days, and that d18OH2O values indeed change predictably due to the presence of CO2, a laboratory study was conducted during which the isotope composition of H2O, CO2, and dissolved inorganic C (DIC) was determined at representative reservoir conditions (50°C and up to 19 MPa) and varying CO2 pressures. Conditions typical for the Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring Pilot in Alberta (Canada) were chosen for the experiments. Results obtained showed that d18O values of CO2 were on average 36.4±2.2 per mil (1 sigma, n=15) higher than those of water at all pressures up to and including reservoir pressure (19 MPa), in excellent agreement with the theoretically predicted isotope enrichment factor of 35.5 per mil for the experimental temperatures of 50°C. By using 18O enriched water for the experiments it was demonstrated that changes in the d18O values of water were predictably related to the fraction of O in the system sourced from CO2 in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions. Since the fraction of O sourced from CO2 is related to the total volumetric saturation of CO2 and water as a fraction of the total volume of the system, it is concluded that changes in d18O values of reservoir fluids can be used to calculate reservoir saturations of CO2 in CCS settings given that the d18O values of CO2 and water are sufficiently distinct.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".