Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06179-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE-PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Suitability Evaluation of ­CO2 Geological Sequestration Based

on Unascertained Measurement
Jie Zhan1,2 · Zezhong Su1,2 · Chao Fan1,2 · Xiaona Li1,2 · Xianlin Ma1,2

Received: 26 June 2021 / Accepted: 6 September 2021

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2021

Abstract
Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) is the primary technique to achieve large-scale industrialized ­CO2 emission
reduction. There is a key issue on CCUS and related engineering construction, which is the suitability evaluation of ­CO2
geological sequestration. The suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological sequestration is essentially a decision-making process
in which unascertained information of various factors and attributes is involved. With the ­CO2 geological sequestration suit-
ability evaluation indexes and released data, a new ­CO2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation model is developed
based on the unascertained measurement theory and comprehensive weight which is composed of subjective weight and
objective weight to reduce the errors arising from employing single weight (either subjective or objective weight) for the
evaluation indexes. The new model is validated by the basin-level ­CO2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation of six
first-level tectonic units, which are the northern plunging zone, the northeast uplift zone, the central depression zone, the
western slope zone, the southeast uplift zone and the southwest uplift zone in Songliao Basin. The results indicate that the
evaluation by the proposed model aligns with the previous study by the consistency of 83.33%. Since the objective weight
is introduced to develop the comprehensive weight of evaluation indexes in the model, the proposed model yields a better
evaluation for the northeast uplift zone. With different evaluation indexes, the proposed model is extensible to evaluate the
suitability of ­CO2 geological sequestration at different levels.

Keywords  CCUS · Unascertained measurement · Comprehensive weight · Songliao basin · Suitability evaluation of basin-
level ­CO2 geological sequestration

1 Introduction ­ O2 emission reduction, which can effectively improve air

C
quality and mitigate climate warming. Several studies indi-
The massive emission of ­CO2 leads to the deterioration of cate that CCUS can reduce global C ­ O2 emission by 20–40%
the global environment. Thus, the global focus is on how to [1, 2].
effectively reduce C
­ O2 pollution. It is suggested that CCUS CCUS is the process of separating and capturing ­CO2
is the primary technique to achieve large-scale industrialized from the sources of emission. The captured ­CO2 is injected
into an appropriate deep underground stratum. With physical
and chemical reactions, it is stored underground and isolated
* Jie Zhan from the atmosphere for a long time. Four primary under-
jizhan@ucalgary.ca
ground geological formations for carbon sequestration are
* Zezhong Su saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seam
szz_xsyu@126.com
and salt carven [3]. The suitability evaluation of ­CO2 geo-
* Xianlin Ma logical sequestration and the selection of appropriate C ­ O2
Xianlinm@126.com
geological sequestration site are the key technical issues
1
School of Petroleum Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, for CCUS and related engineering construction [4, 5]. The
Xi’an 710065, China appropriate ­CO2 geological sequestration site must meet the
2
Engineering Research Center of Development requirements of reasonable storage volume, dome-shaped
and Management for Low to Ultra‑Low Permeability Oil & geological structure, caprock with the proper thickness,
Gas Reservoirs in West China, Ministry of Education, Xi’an appropriate temperature and pressure, etc. [6, 7]. In China,
Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

the evaluation of ­CO2 geological sequestration potential and
suitability is mainly divided into five levels: region level,
basin level, target zone level, field level, and injection site
level. With the appropriate evaluation indexes, the models
for ­CO2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation are
developed mainly based on the weight analysis, fuzzy com-
prehensive evaluation (FCE), multi-factor sorting method,
and gray correlation analysis, as described in Table 1 [4,
8–19].
Unascertained measurement evaluation is a combination
of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods based
on fuzzy reasoning, which is implemented to measure the
degree to which an evaluation object has certain proper-
ties [20, 21]. It has been widely applied in mining, disas-
ter prevention and mitigation, etc. [22–25]. The suitability
evaluation of ­CO2 geological sequestration is essentially a
decision-making process with unascertained information
of various factors and attributes. Compared with methods
of weight analysis, gray correlation analysis and FCE, it is
better to apply the unascertained measurement method to
the decision-making process in which the unascertained
information is involved. The general steps to employ the
unascertained measurement method to screen the C ­ O2 geo-
logical sequestration site are given in the following. First
of all, the evaluation indexes of research objects need to be
determined. Secondly, with the construction of the single
index unascertained measurement function, the single index
measurement matrix of the evaluation indexes is obtained.
Thirdly, the subjective weight and the objective weight are
calculated to obtain the comprehensive weight of the evalu-
ation index. Then, the weighted approach is employed to
determine the multi-index comprehensive measurement
evaluation matrix. Finally, with the confidence recognition
criteria, the evaluation result of each object is determined to
screen the ­CO2 geological sequestration site.
With the released data [18], based on the unascertained
measurement method, combined with the comprehensive
weight of the evaluation indexes, a basin-level ­CO2 geologi-
cal sequestration suitability evaluation model is established.
­ O2 geological sequestration of
The suitability evaluation of C
six first-level tectonic units, which are the northern plung-
ing zone, the northeast uplift zone, the central depression
zone, the western slope zone, the southeast uplift zone and
the southwest uplift zone in Songliao Basin, is carried out
to provide more accurate guidance for the screening of the
­CO2 geological sequestration site. The proposed method can
not only be used for the basin-level suitability evaluation
of ­CO2 geological sequestration but also be applied to the
other four levels suitability evaluation only with different
evaluation indexes.
13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
2 Unascertained Measurement Theory
A s s u{m i n g t h a t } t h e eva l u a t i o n o b j e c t s et i s
A = a1 , a2 , … , an  , ai is the{ i-th evaluation } object. The
evaluation index set is B = b1 , b2 , … , bm and bj is the
j-th evaluation object. d ij represents the measurement
value of the evaluation object ai with respect to the index
bj. If{dij has p evaluation levels, the evaluation level set is
U = c1 , c2 , … , cp  , where ck is the k-th (k ∈ [1, p]) evalu-
}
ation level. And the evaluation result at k-th level is set to
be better than at the (k + 1)-th level (ck>ck+1). It should be
noted that any index in the evaluation hierarchy system is
independent of each other.
2.1 Unascertained Measurement of Single Index
Assume that μijk represents the degree to which the measured
value dij belongs to the k-th evaluation level ck, where μ must
meet non-negativity, normalization and additivity principles.
(1) 0 ≤ 𝜇 dij ∈ ck ≤ 1 , where i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …,
( )
m;( k = 1, 2,) …, p;
(2) 𝜇�dij ∈ U =�1 , where i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, m;
k k
(3) 𝜇 dij ∈ U cl = 𝜇 dij ∈ cl  , where i = 1, 2, …, n;
∑ � �
l=1 l=1
j = 1, 2, …, m; k = 1, 2, …, p.
The measurement value dij belonging to the single index
unascertained measurement of the evaluation level ck is
μijk=μ(dij ∈ ck). By constructing the single index unascer-
tained measurement function, as shown in Fig. 1, the single
index measurement matrix (μijk)m×p is determined as follows:
⎡ 𝜇i11 𝜇i12 … 𝜇i1p ⎤
� � ⎢𝜇 𝜇
𝜇ijk m×p = ⎢ i21 i22
⋯ 𝜇i2p ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥⎥
⎣ 𝜇im1 𝜇im2 ⋯ 𝜇imp ⎦
2.2 Weighted Average Method
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is commonly employed
to obtain the weight of the evaluation index. When deter-
mining the judgment matrix of the evaluation index, AHP
has strong subjective randomness. To reduce subjective
errors, the comprehensive weight w of the evaluation index
is introduced, composed of subjective weight w1 and objec-
tive weight w2. Among them, w1 is calculated by the AHP
method, and w2 is calculated by the entropy weight method.
Comprehensive weight calculation When calculating the
comprehensive weight wj, it is necessary to implement the
 Table 1  Summary on C
­ O2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation
Author Evaluation methodology Evaluation indexes Application

Stefan Bachu [8] Weight analysis Tectonic background, area, depth, geological characteristics, Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in the saline
hydrogeological characteristics, geothermal conditions, aquifers, Albert, Canada
hydrocarbon generation potential, maturity, CBM, rock salt,
onshore/offshore, climate, level of exploration, infrastructure,
carbon dioxide source
Curtis M. Oldenburg [9] Weight analysis Thickness, rock type, sealability, well depth, reservoir rock type, Early screening of C­ O2 storage sites in California, USA
porosity and permeability, reservoir thickness, fracture or
primary porosity, reservoir fluid, pressure, structure, hydrody-
namics, fault integrity
Thomas V. P. [10]
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Weight analysis Reservoir depth, integrity, ­CO2 storage capacity, reservoir petro- Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in European
physical properties (porosity and permeability) sedimentary basins
FAN Jijiao [11] Weight analysis Basin type, basin area, thickness, resource potential, level of Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in sedimentary
exploration, data availability, region-level prediction, basin basins in China
conditions, density of gas resource distribution, fracture
density, stability of crust, earthquake, surface temperature,
terrestrial heat flow, temperature gradient
Diao Yujie [12] Weight analysis Reservoir lithology, reservoir thickness, reservoir permeabil- Suitability evaluation of reservoir caprock for C
­ O2 geological
ity, permeability variation coefficient, resource distribution, storage in deep saline aquifers in China
hydrodynamic conditions, caprock lithology, thickness of cap-
rock, caprock distribution, fracture development of caprock,
number of "buffering caprock"
LI Haibing [13] Weight analysis Area of first-level tectonic units, deposited depth of first-level Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in Tarim Basin
tectonic units, level of exploration, data availability, resource
potential and stability of regional crust, surface temperature,
terrestrial heat flow, temperature gradient, population density,
land utilization, basin-level predicted potential of the first-
level tectonic unit, basin-level predicted area of the first-level
tectonic unit, reservoir conditions of the first-level tectonic
unit, caprock of the first-level tectonic unit, combination of
reservoir and caprock of the first-level tectonic unit
YANG Xiaoyi [14] Weight analysis Reservoir lithology, reservoir depth, reservoir thickness, poros- Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in deep saline
ity, permeability, permeability variation coefficient, total stor- aquifers in Songliao Basin
age potential, reservoir storage potential per unit area, number
of regional caprocks, surface temperature, terrestrial heat flow,
level of exploration, data availability, groundwater salinity,
caprock integrity, stability of regional crust, probability of
geological hazard, hydrogeologic condition, amount of carbon
source, infrastructure, population density, land utilization,
public acceptance and related regulation

13


Table 1  (continued)
Author Evaluation methodology Evaluation indexes Application

SHEN Pingping [15] Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation Tectonic background and tectonic type, basin area, depth, Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in Songliao
hydrologic geology, surface temperature, terrestrial heat flow, Basin
temperature gradient, geological characteristics, sealability,

13
hydrocarbon source rocks, coal seam and coalbed methane,
level of exploration, infrastructure, distance from gas source,
amount of gas source, basin conditions, revenue, permeabil-
ity variation coefficient, rock characteristics, carbon dioxide
utilization coefficient, injectivity, integrity
WANG Zhongqing [16] Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation Caprock characteristics, site safety/integrity during earthquake Safety risk assessment of C
­ O2 geological storage in the deep
and leakage pathways, topography, dominant wind direction saline aquifers of Ordos Basin and Hetao Basin
of the ­CO2 injection site and residential region, distance from
residential region to the C­ O2 injection site, distance from
drinking water sources, such as rivers and reservoirs, to the
­CO2 injection site
DIAO Yujie [17] Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation Lithology, thickness of single layer, reservoir thickness, Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in deep saline
resource distribution, mechanical stability, gas sequestration aquifers in China
index, number of secondary caprocks above the primary cap-
rock, development of faults and fractures, peak acceleration
during earthquake, site safety during earthquake, activated
faults within 25 km, hydrodynamic condition, probability of
geological hazard, region with subsidence due to mining and
karst collapse, ground subsidence region, desert region, region
with volcanic activity, region with rivers, lakes, and reservoirs
with the highest water level or flood-prone areas
YANG Guoqiang [18] Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation Storage volume, depth, predicted potential, gas source, surface Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in Songliao
temperature, terrestrial heat flow, temperature gradient, Basin
hydrogeological structure, area of caprock, buried depth of
caprock, gas sequestration index of caprock/structure trapping,
reservoir thickness, reservoir effective porosity, reservoir
heterogeneity, reservoir rock characteristics, peak acceleration
during earthquake, intensity of earthquake, fracture density
GUO Jianqiang [19] Multi-factor sorting method Reservoir conditions, storage potential, reservoir pressure, Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in deep saline
surface temperature, injection technology, caprock stability, aquifers at basin level
crustal stability, probability of geological hazard, injection
cost, infrastructure, occupied resources, public and social
environment, geographical conditions
SONG Tiejun [4] Gray correlation analysis Peak acceleration during earthquake, safety during earthquake, Suitability evaluation of C
­ O2 geological storage in Songliao
burial depth of caprock, caprock lithology, thickness of cap- Basin
rock, fracture density, hydrogeological conditions, reservoir
thickness, reservoir lithology, reservoir pressure coefficient,
terrestrial heat flow, temperature gradient, effective poros-
ity, effective storage volume, population density, amount of
carbon source
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 3  Value of RI [29] N RI N RI

1 0.0000 11 1.5200
2 0.0000 12 1.5400
3 0.5800 13 1.5600
4 0.9000 14 1.5800
5 1.1200 15 1.5900
6 1.2400 16 1.6050
7 1.3200 17 1.6158
8 1.1400 18 1.6264
9 1.4500 19 1.6327
10 1.4900 20 1.6403

Fig. 1  Unascertained measurement function of a single index

determination principle as shown in Table 2; ③ Solving the

variation coefficient method to obtain the preference coef- largest eigenvalue and eigenvector b of the judgment matrix
ficient φ [26], as shown in Eqs. (1)–(3). X; ④ Hierarchical ranking and examining the consistency.
If CR < 0.1, it indicates that the consistency of the judgment
2( � m+1
matrix is good, and its eigenvector b can be used as the sub-
� � � )
d = 1F1 + 2F2 + ⋯ + mFm − (1)
m m
jective weight w1 of the evaluation index. The consistency
test is as follows:
m �
𝜑=
m−1
d (2)
𝜆max − 1
CI = (4)
N−1
wj = 𝜑w1j + (1 − 𝜑)w2j (3)

where wj is the comprehensive weight of the evaluation CI

CR = (5)
index; w1j is the subjective weight of the evaluation index; RI
w2j is the objective weight of the evaluation index; F’m is
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment
a component of the vector composed of the rearrangement
matrix; N is the dimension of the judgment matrix; CI is the
of each component in the subjective weight vector w1j from
consistency index of the judgment matrix; CR is the consist-
small to large; d is the variation coefficient of each compo-
ency ratio of the judgment matrix; RI is the average random
nent of the subjective weight vector w1j; φ is the preference
consistency index, of which the value is shown in Table 3.
coefficient; m is the number of evaluation indexes, with a
value of 20.
Objective weight calculation The entropy method is used
to calculate the objective weight w2j of the evaluation index
Subjective weight calculation Analytic hierarchy pro-
[28]. The evaluation index weight is positively related to
cess (AHP) is used to calculate the subjective weight w1j
the entropy value. The value of the w2j ranges from 0 to 1.
of the evaluation index [27, 28]. The steps of the calcula-
Meanwhile, the summation of the objective weight of all the
tion are as follows: ① Building the hierarchical structure
evaluation indexes is 1. The calculation method is as shown
model; ② Determining the index judgment matrix X, and the
in the following Eqs. (6)–(7).

Table 2  Determination Scale Illustration

principles for the judgment
matrix of AHP
1 Indicating that factor i is as important as factor j
3 Indicating that factor i is slightly more important than factor j
5 Indicating that factor i is more important than factor j
7 Indicating that factor i is obviously more important than factor j
9 Indicating that factor i is extremely more important than factor j
2, 4, 6, 8 The middle value of two adjacent judgments
Reciprocal The comparison of factor i with factor j expressed as aij, the
comparison of factor j with factor i expressed as aji = 1/aji

13
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

n ( k )
1 ∑
(6)
∑
Vj = 1 + 𝜐 ln 𝜐ij k0 = min 𝜇il ≥ 𝜆, 1 ≤ k ≤ 5 (9)
ln n i=1 ij k
l=1

m
∑
w2j = Vj ∕ Vj (7)
i=1
3 Suitability Evaluation of ­CO2 Geological
where υij is the characteristic ratio of the i-th evaluation
Sequestration Based on Unascertained
object with respect to the j-th index; n is the number of the
Measurement
evaluation objects; Vj is the variation coefficient; w2j is the
objective weight of the evaluation index; m is the number of
3.1 Evaluation Indexes
the evaluation indexes.
While taking four aspects (storage capacity, storage cost/
2.3 Multi‑index Comprehensive Measurement
revenue, reservoir conditions and reservoir/caprock integ-
Evaluation Matrix
rity) and the availability of related data into considera-
tion, 20 evaluation indexes and 5 levels have been pro-
Assume that 𝜇ik = 𝜇 xij ∈ ck represents the degree to which
( )
posed for the six first-level tectonic units in Songliao
the i-th evaluation object belonging to the k-th evaluation
Basin in the previous study on the screening of the C ­ O2
level ck. Then, μik can be expressed as follows:
geological sequestration site [18]. In our study, with the
m
∑ proposed 20 evaluation indexes, the basin-level C ­ O2 geo-
𝜇ik = wj 𝜇ijk (8) logical sequestration suitability evaluation models based
j=1
on unascertained measurement theory are developed for
The matrix (𝜇ik )n×p is referred as the multi-index compre- the northern plunging zone, the northeast uplift zone, the
hensive measurement evaluation matrix, where the i-th row central depression zone, the western slope zone, the south-
vector is the comprehensive measurement evaluation vector east uplift zone and the southwest uplift zone in Songliao
of ai: Basin, respectively. The data on the proposed 20 evalua-
tion indexes of each first-level tectonic unit are specified
⎡ 𝜇11 𝜇12 … 𝜇1p ⎤ in Table 4.
� � ⎢𝜇 𝜇22 ⋯ 𝜇2p ⎥
𝜇ik n×p = ⎢ 21
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥⎥
⎣ 𝜇n1 𝜇n2 ⋯ 𝜇np ⎦ 3.2 Unascertained Measurement of Single Index

In this model, the evaluation object set A = {the north-

ern plunging zone, the northeast uplift zone, the west-
2.4 Confidence Recognition
ern slope zone, the central depression zone, the southeast
uplift zone, the southwest uplift zone}, i = 1 ~ n, n = 6; the
The evaluation level set U = c1 , c2 , ⋯ , cp is an ordered set.
{ }
evaluation index set B = {predicted potential, gas (carbon)
And the confidence value assigned to λ is 0.6. Assuming that
source, level of exploration, resource potential, surface
the measurement values in any row (ai) of the multi-index
temperature, terrestrial heat flow, temperature gradient,
comprehensive measurement (𝜇ik )n×p are summed from left
hydrogeological conditions, burial depth of caprock, ratio
to right, if its summation is greater than λ, the correspond-
of caprock area, gas sequestration index, reservoir depth,
ing evaluation ck is the evaluation result of ai, as shown in
ratio of reservoir area, reservoir thickness, characteristics
Eq. (9).
of reservoir rock, reservoir effective porosity, heteroge-
neity, peak acceleration during earthquake, intensity of
earthquake, fracture density}, j = 1 ~ m, m = 20; the evalu-
ation level U = {more appropriate, appropriate, average,
less appropriate, inappropriate}, k = 1 ~ p, p = 5.
According to the construction rules of the single index
unascertained measurement matrix, the single index unas-
certained measurement matrix of each evaluation object
is determined as (μ1jk)20×5, (μ2jk)20×5, (μ3jk)20×5, (μ4jk)20×5,
(μ5jk)20×5, (μ6jk)20×5, specified as follows:

13
 Table 4  Evaluation indexes of each first-level tectonic unit [18]
Evaluation Index classification Northern Northeast Western Central Southeast Southwest
indexes plunging uplift slope depression uplift uplift zone
More Appropriate Average Less Appro- Inappropri- zone zone zone, zone zone
Appropriate priate ate

Basin-level  > 10,000 (5000, 10000] [1000, 5000] [500, 1000)  < 500 10,553 5741 7209 12,549 3632 1860
predicted
potential/106t
Gas (Carbon) Enough (5) Much (4) Medium (3) Little (2) None (1) 2 2 4 4 4 3
source
Level of explo- Developing Highly explored (4) Moderately explored (3) Roughly Unexplored 3 3 5 5 5 3
ration (5) explored (1)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

(2)
Resource Larger (5) Large (4) Medium (3) Small (2) Smaller (1) 2 2 3 5 3 2
potential
Surface tem-  < -2  − 2 ~ 3 3 ~ 4 10 ~ 25  > 25 4 4 4 4 4 4
perature/℃
Terrestrial heat  < 54.5 54.5 ~ 65 65 ~ 75 75 ~ 85  > 85 54 54 54 83 54 54
flow/(mW/
m2)
Temperature  < 2.0 2.0 ~ 3.0 3.0 ~ 4.0 4.0 ~ 5.0  > 5.0 2.8 2.8 3.1 4.0 5.1 3.4
gradient/
(℃/m)
Hydrogeologi- Large-scale Large-scale flow, deeper Medium-scale flow, deep Small-scale Small-scale 2 2 2 5 4 2
cal condition flow, (depth) depth, moder- (depth), frequently flow, flow,
deeper ately frequently updated updated (3) shallow shallow
(depth), (4) (depth), (depth),
less more most
frequently frequently frequently
updated updated updated
(5) (2) (1)
Burial depth of 1400 ~ 1900 1900 ~ 2400 2400 ~ 290 2900 ~ 3400  > 3400 794 613 581 1506 463 620
caprock/m 1100 ~ 1400 900 ~ 1100 700 ~ 900  < 700
Ratio of cap-  > 80 60 ~ 80 40 ~ 60 20 ~ 40  < 20 88.9 58 97.4 100 71 24.2
rock area/%
Gas sequestra-  > 400 200 ~ 400 100 ~ 200 0 ~ 100  ≤ 0 150 150 150 316 150 150
tion index/m
Reservoir 1500 ~ 2000 2000 ~ 25,00 2500 ~ 30,00 3000 ~ 3500  > 3500 463 480 900 1010 533 517
depth/m 1200 ~ 1500 1000 ~ 1200 800 ~ 1000  < 800
Ratio of reser-  > 80 60 ~ 80 40 ~ 60 20 ~ 40  < 20 81.3 73.9 66.7 100 75.8 27.2
voir aera /%
Reservoir  > 40 30 ~ 40 20 ~ 30 10 ~ 20  < 10 48.8 27.1 24.4 47.6 16.7 7.1
thickness/m

13


Table 4  (continued)
Evaluation Index classification Northern Northeast Western Central Southeast Southwest
indexes plunging uplift slope depression uplift uplift zone
More Appropriate Average Less Appro- Inappropri- zone zone zone, zone zone
Appropriate priate ate

13
Characteristics Layered dis- Mixed layered distribu- Layered distribution of Non-layered No rock salt 5 5 5 5 5 5
of reservoir tribution tion (4) carbonate (3) distribu- (1)
rock of clastic tion (2)
rocks (5)
Reservoir effec- 10 ~ 15 15 ~ 20 20 ~ 25 25 ~ 30  > 30 21.7 21.7 20.5 20.5 19.2 19.2
tive poros- 8 ~ 10 6 ~ 8 4 ~ 6  < 4
ity/%
Heterogeneity  < 0.50 0.50 ~ 0.55 0.55 ~ 0.60 0.60 ~ 0.65  > 0.65 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Peak accel-  < 0.05 0.05 ~ 0.10 0.10 ~ 0.15 0.20 ~ 0.30  > 0.40  < 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05  < 0.05
eration during
earthquake/g
Intensity of  <  (5) VI ~ (4) VIII (3) IX (2)  >  (1) 5 5 4 4 4 5
Earthquake
Fracture  < 0.2 0.2 ~ 0.3 0.3 ~ 0.4  > 0.4  > 0.4 0.030 0.022 0.014 0.035 0.012 0
density/(km/
km2)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

⎡1 0 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 0.609 0.391 0 0 ⎤
⎢0 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢0 0 1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢0 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0.690 0.310 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.690 0.310 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0.940 0.060 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥
� � ⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ � � ⎢ 0 0.400 0.600 0 0 ⎥
𝜇1jk 20×5 =⎢ 𝜇2jk 20×5 = ⎢
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥
⎥ ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0.390 0.610 0 0 0⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.210 0.790 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ 0 0.152 0.848 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.152 0.848 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 0 0⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣1 0 0 0 0 ⎦ ⎣ 1 0 0 0 0⎦
,

⎡0 0.935 0.065 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢0 1 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢0 0 1 0 0⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥
⎢1 0 0 0 0⎥ 0 0 0 0.400 0.600 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢0 0.446 0.554 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0.477 0.523 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0 1 0⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
� � ⎢1 0 0 0 0⎥ � � ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
𝜇3jk 20×5 =⎢ 𝜇4jk 20×5 = ⎢
⎢0 0 1 0 0⎥ ⎢ 0.160 0.840 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎥
⎢0 0 0 1 0⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0.550 0.450 0 ⎥
⎢0 0.835 0.165 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0.940 0.060 0 ⎥ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢1 0 0 0 0⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0.406 0.594 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.392 0.608 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣1 0 0 0 0⎦ ⎣ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎦

13
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

⎡ 0 0.140 0.860 0 0 ⎤ ⎡0 0 0.444 0.556 0 ⎤

⎢ 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢0 0 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢0 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0⎥ ⎢0 0 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥ ⎢0 0 0.964 0.036 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0⎥ ⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢ 0 0.150 0.850 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢0 0 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
� � ⎢ 0.100 0.900 0 0 0⎥ � � ⎢0 0 0 0.420 0.560 ⎥
𝜇5jk =⎢ 𝜇 =
20×5
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎥ 6jk 20×5 ⎢⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ 0.580 0.420 0 0 0⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0.720 0.280 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.170 0.830 0 ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0⎥ ⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0.660 0.340 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.660 0.340 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎢1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 0 0 0 0⎦ ⎣1 0 0 0 0 ⎦

comprehensive weight of a certain evaluation index is, the

3.3 Weights Calculation of Evaluation Indexes
The subjective weight w1j of the evaluation index is cal-
culated by AHP. The constructed hierarchy model is illus-
trated in Fig. 2. The judgment matrix is obtained based on
the judgment matrix determination principles, as shown in
Table 5. With the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment
matrix λmax=19.7460 and the dimensions of the judgment
matrix N=20, the consistency index CI of the judgment
matrix is obtained as 0.0136. According to Table 3, the aver-
age random consistency index is obtained, which is 1.6403.
Then, the consistency ratio is calculated to be CR=0.0083,
which is less than 0.1. Therefore, the judgment matrix passes
the consistency test. Then, the subjective weight of the eval-
uation index w1j is obtained, as shown in Table 6.
Based on the single index measurement matrix of the
CO2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation index
of each first-level tectonic unit, the objective weight w2j
of each first-level tectonic unit suitability evaluation index
is calculated by the entropy weight method. The detailed
information on the objective weight w2j of each first-level
tectonic unit is specified in the Table 6.
According to the subjective weight w1j and objective
weight w2j, the comprehensive weight w ­ j of the evaluation
index is calculated based on Eqs. (1) ~ (3), where φ = 0.3420.
The detailed information on the comprehensive weight w ­ j of
the evaluation index is shown in the Table 6. The bigger the
greater the impact of the evaluation index on the evaluation
result is. Compared with other evaluation indexes, the com-
prehensive weights of the basin-level predicted potential and
gas sequestration index are bigger, which indicates that the
basin-level predicted potential and gas sequestration index
play a more significant role in the C
­ O2 geological seques-
tration suitability evaluation of the case. Thus, compared
with other evaluation indexes, we need to pay more attention
to these two indexes when screening the ­CO2 geological
sequestration site.
3.4 Multi‑index Comprehensive Measurement
Evaluation Matrix
According to the single index measurement matrix (μijk)20×5
and the evaluation index comprehensive weight wj, the
first-level tectonic unit evaluation system is developed. The
multi-index comprehensive measurement matrix (μik)1×5 of
the first-level tectonic unit evaluation system is determined
based on Eq. (8). According to the multi-index compre-
hensive measurement matrix, the northern plunging zone
(μ1k)1×5 = [0.4682, 0.0259, 0.2039, 0.2006, 0.1014]; the
northeast uplift zone (μ2k)1×5 = [0.2035, 0.1688, 0.3042,
0.1710, 0.1526]; the western slope area (μ3k)1×5 = [0.2490,
0.2848, 0.2592, 0.1057, 0.1014]; central depression zone

13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Fig. 2  Hierarchy of ­CO2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation
(μ4k)1×5 = [0.5845, 0.2104, 0.0912, 0.0411, 0.0727]; south-
east uplift zone (μ5k)1×5 = [0.2231, 0.2936, 0.2536, 0.0387,
0.1909]; southwest uplift zone (μ6k)1×5 = [0.2277, 0.0323,
0.2953, 0.2033, 0.2414].
3.5 Confidence Identification and Suitability
Evaluation
With the confidence value of 0.6 assigned to λ [30], the
Eq. (9) is implemented to determine the suitability of C ­ O2
geological sequestration for each first-level tectonic unit.
The detailed results are shown in Table 7. Compared with
the previous study, the consistency is 83.33%, indicating
that the proposed model based on unascertained measure-
ment for C­ O2 geological sequestration suitability evaluation
is reliable. The difference of the evaluation between two
models arises from the following two reasons: ① Compared
with the method employed in Yang’s study, the single index
measurement matrix is more consistent with the actual geo-
logical background; ② The objective weight is introduced
to develop comprehensive weight, leading to more accurate
weight calculation for the evaluation indexes.
4 Conclusions
(1) Based on the unascertained measurement theory, a
model for basin-level C ­ O2 geological sequestration
suitability evaluation is established by introducing the
comprehensive weight of the evaluation index. The
­CO2 geological sequestration suitability of six first-
level tectonic units in Songliao Basin is evaluated based
on the proposed model. The evaluation by the proposed
model is consistent with the previous evaluation by the
accuracy of 83.33%.
(2) By introducing the comprehensive weight composed of
subjective weight and objective weight, it can reduce
the bias arising from employing a single weight (either
subjective weight or objective weight) for the evalua-
tion index, which is the primary reason for yielding
a better evaluation result for the northeast uplift zone
compared with the previous study.
(3) With different evaluation indexes, the proposed model
is extensible to evaluate the suitability of ­CO2 geologi-
cal sequestration at different levels, such as regional
level, target zone level, field level and injection site
level.
13


13
Table 5  The judgment matrix of evaluation indexes
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20

R1 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 9.0000 8.0000 8.0000 3.0000 5.0000 3.0000 2.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 8.0000 8.0000 8.0000
R2 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R3 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R4 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R5 0.1111 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2000 0.3333 0.2000 0.1100 0.3333 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
R6 0.1250 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.2000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
R7 0.1250 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.2000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
R8 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R9 0.2000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 3.0000 2.0000 2.0000 0.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
R10 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R11 0.5000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 9.0000 5.0000 5.0000 2.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000 3.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000
R12 0.2000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 3.0000 2.0000 2.0000 0.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
R13 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R14 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R15 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R16 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R17 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.5000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
R18 0.1250 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.2000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
R19 0.1250 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.2000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
R20 0.1250 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.2000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
 Table 6  Weights of evaluation indexes
Evaluation indexes Subjective weights Objective weights Comprehensive weights

Northern Northeast Western Central Southeast Southwest Northern Northeast Western Central Southeast Southwest
plunging uplift zone slope zone depression uplift zone uplift zone plunging uplift zone slope zone, depression uplift zone uplift zone
zone zone zone zone

Basin-level pre- 0.1614 0.0523 0.0331 0.0460 0.0557 0.0408 0.0318 0.0896 0.0770 0.0855 0.0918 0.0820 0.0761
dicted potential
Gas (Carbon) source 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Level of exploration 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
Resource potential 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
Surface temperature 0.0111 0.0474 0.0513 0.0488 0.0506 0.0493 0.0500 0.0350 0.0375 0.0359 0.0371 0.0362 0.0367
Terrestrial heat flow 0.0188 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0325 0.0545 0.0555 0.0409 0.0436 0.0420 0.0278 0.0423 0.0430
Temperature gradi- 0.0188 0.0323 0.0348 0.031 0.0319 0.0545 0.0409 0.0277 0.0293 0.0268 0.0274 0.0423 0.0334
ent
Hydrogeological 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
condition
Burial depth of 0.0316 0.0449 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0404 0.0480 0.0464 0.0475 0.0467 0.0473
caprock
Ratio of caprock 0.0567 0.0523 0.0329 0.0541 0.0557 0.0435 0.0319 0.0538 0.0410 0.0550 0.0560 0.0480 0.0404
area
Gas sequestration 0.1036 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0406 0.0545 0.0555 0.0698 0.0726 0.0710 0.0621 0.0713 0.0719
index
Reservoir depth 0.0316 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0319 0.0545 0.0555 0.0452 0.0480 0.0464 0.0318 0.0467 0.0473
Ratio of reservoir 0.0567 0.0523 0.0331 0.0390 0.0557 0.0315 0.0350 0.0538 0.0412 0.0450 0.0560 0.0401 0.0424
aera
Reservoir thickness 0.0567 0.0523 0.0385 0.0465 0.0557 0.0391 0.0555 0.0538 0.0447 0.0500 0.0560 0.0451 0.0559
Characteristics of 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
reservoir rock
Reservoir effective 0.0567 0.0386 0.0418 0.0313 0.0327 0.0328 0.0334 0.0448 0.0469 0.0400 0.0409 0.0410 0.0414
porosity
Heterogeneity 0.0567 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0538 0.0566 0.0550 0.0560 0.0552 0.0559
Peak acceleration 0.0188 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0409 0.0436 0.0420 0.0431 0.0423 0.0430
during earthquake
Intensity of Earth- 0.0188 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0409 0.0436 0.0420 0.0431 0.0423 0.0430
quake
Fracture density 0.0188 0.0523 0.0565 0.0541 0.0557 0.0545 0.0555 0.0409 0.0436 0.0420 0.0431 0.0423 0.0430

13
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 7  Confidence recognition and evaluation results

Tectonic units Confidence recognition Evaluation results based on The results of Yang
the proposed model

Northern plunging zone 5

∑ Average Average
𝜇1l = 0.4682 + 0.0259 + 0.2039 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Northeast uplift zone 5

∑ Average Less Appropriate
𝜇2l = 0.2035 + 0.1688 + 0.3042 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Western slope zone 5

∑ Average Average
𝜇3l = 0.2490 + 0.2848 + 0.2592 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Central depression zone 5

∑ Appropriate Appropriate
𝜇4l = 0.5845 + 0.2104 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Southeast uplift area 5

∑ Average Average
𝜇5l = 0.2231 + 0.2936 + 0.2536 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Southwest uplift zone 5

∑ Less Appropriate Less Appropriate
𝜇6l = 0.2277 + 0.0323 + 0.2953 + 0.2033 > 𝜆 = 0.6
l=1

Acknowledgements  School of Petroleum Engineering at Xi’an Shiyou
University is highly appreciated.
Funding  This research is supported by the General Project of National
Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 51974253], the Youth
Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No.
52004219], the Scientific Research Program Funded by Shaanxi Pro-
vincial Education Department [Grant No. 20JS117], the Natural Sci-
ence Basic Research Program of Shaanxi [Grant Nos. 2020JQ-781 and
221717005], the Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Shale Oil and
Gas Enrichment Mechanisms and Effective Development [Grant No.
G5800-20-ZS-KFGY018], the Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of
Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation (Southwest Petroleum
University) [Grant No. PLN2021-12] and the Graduate Student Innova-
tion and Practical Ability Training Program of Xi'an Shiyou University
[Grant No. YCS20111001].
10. Thomas, V.P.; Karen, L.A.; Nikki, S.: Assessing European
Declarations  capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide-the EU Geo
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no conflict of interest.
12. Diao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Guo, J.: Reservoir and caprock evaluation of
References
1. Hasan, M.M.F.; First, E.L.; Boukouvala, F.: A multi-scale
framework for ­C O 2 capture, utilization, and sequestration:
CCUS and CCU. Comput. Chem. Eng. 81, 2–21 (2015)
2. Jiang, K.; Ashworth, P.; Zhang, S.: Chinas carbon capture, uti-
lization and storage (CCUS) policy: A critical review. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 119, 109601 (2020)
3. Zhan, J.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Y.: Will the future of shale reservoirs
lie in ­CO2 geological sequestration? Sci. China Techno. Sc. 63,
1154–1163 (2020)
4. Hawkes, C.D.; Bachu, S., Haug, K.: Analysis of in-situ stress
regime in the Alberta Basin, Canada, for performance assess-
ment of ­CO2 geological sequestration sites. In: Proceedings of
the fourth annual conference on carbon capture and sequestra-
tion DOE/NETL. (2005)
5. Song, T.; Wan, Y.; Zhang, W.: Suitability assessment of geologi-
cal sequestration of C­ O2 in Songliao Basin based on gray rela-
tional analysis method (in Chinese). Geol. Bull. China. 36(10),
1874–1883 (2017)
6. Bachu, S.; Stewart, S.: Geological sequestration of anthropo-
genic carbon dioxide in the Western Canada sedimentary basin:
suitability analysis. J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 41(02) (2002)
7. Elliot, T.R.; Celia, M.A.: Potential restrictions for ­CO2 seques-
tration sites due to shale and tight gas production. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46(7), 4223–4227 (2012)
8. Bachu, S.: Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for
sequestration of C­ O2, in geological media in response to climate
change. Environ. Geol. 44(3), 277–289 (2003)
9. Oldenburg, C.M.: Screening and ranking framework for geo-
logic ­CO2 storage site selection on the basis of health, safety,
and environmental risk. Environ. Geol. 54(8), 1687–1694
(2008)
Capacity project. Energy Procedia. 34(1), 2663–2670 (2009)
11. Fan, J.; Jia, X.; Zhang, S.: A study of ­CO2 geological storage
potential and suitability assessment (in Chinese). Hydrogeol. Eng.
Geol. 38(6), 108–112 (2011)
­CO2 geological storage site selection in deep saline aquifers (in
Chinese). Rock. Soil Mech. 33(8), 2422–2428 (2012)
13. Li H.: Carbon dioxide geological storage potential and of Tarim
basin (in Chinese). Dissertation for Master’s Degree, Beijing,
China University of Geosciences (2012)
14. Yang, X.; Liu, Y.; Xu, L.: Construction and application of compre-
hensive evaluation index system for the suitability of ­CO2 geologi-
cal storage in deep saline aquifer (in Chinese). Saf. Environ. Eng.
21(5), 71–77 (2014)
15. Shen, P.; Liao, X.: The technology of carbon dioxide stored in
geological media and enhanced oil recovery (in Chinese). Petro-
leum Industry Press, Beijing (2009)
16. Wang, Z.: Study on Evaluation Method for Safety Risk of C ­ O2
Geological Storage (in Chinese). Dissertation for Master’s Degree,
Beijing, North China Electric Power University (2012)

13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
17. Diao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Guo, J.: Study of the geological safety evalu-
ation method of C ­ O2 geological storage in deep saline aquifer (in
Chinese). Geol. China. 38(3), 786–792 (2011)
18. Yang, G.; Su, X.; Du, S.: Suitability assessment of geological
sequestration of ­CO2 in Songliao Basin (in Chinese). Acta. Geo-
sci. Sin. 32(5), 570–580 (2011)
19. Guo, J.; Zhang, S.; Diao, Y.: Site selection method of ­CO2 geo-
logical storage in deep saline aquifers (in Chinese). J. Jilin Univ.,
Earth Sci. Ed. 41(4), 1084–1091 (2011)
20. Liu, A.; Dong, L.: Optimization model of unascertained measure-
ment for underground mining method selection and its application
(in Chinese). J. Cent. South Univ. T. 17(4), 744–749 (2010)
21. Zhao, K.; Wang, Q.; Yan, Y.: Geological structural surface evalu-
ation model based on unascertained measure. Geofluids (2019)
22. Zhou, J.; Chen, C.; Armaghani, D.J.: Developing a hybrid model
of information entropy and unascertained measurement theory
for evaluation of the excavatability in rock mass. Eng. Comput-
Germany. 1–24 (2020)
23. Dong, L.; Peng, G.; Fu, Y.: Unascertained measurement classify-
ing model of goaf collapse prediction. J. Coal Sci. Eng. 14(2),
221–224 (2008)
24. Jia, Q.; Wu, L.; Li, B.: The comprehensive prediction model of
rockburst tendency in tunnel based on optimized unascertained
measure theory. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 37(4), 3399–3411 (2019)
25. Li, W.; Li, H.; Liu, Y.: Fire risk assessment of high-rise buildings
under construction based on unascertained measure theory. PLoS
ONE 15(9), e0239166 (2020)
26. Liu, H.: A study on the determination of the weight of index in
comprehensive assessment (in Chinese). J. Hebei Univ. Technol.
25(4), 75–80 (1996)
27. Saaty, T.L.: What is the analytic hierarchy process? Springer, Ber-
lin (1988)
28. Chen, C.H.: A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for
building material supplier selection based on entropy-AHP
weighted TOPSIS. Entropy-Switz. 22(2), 259 (2020)
29. Jiao, S.: The algorithm of mean random consistency index in AHP
and its implementation (in Chinese). J. Taiyuan Normal Univ. Nat.
Sci. Ed. 4 (2006)
30. Zeng, H.: Technical and economic evaluation system studies
on residential building energy-saving of Zhejiang province (in
Chinese). Dissertation for Master’s Degree, Hangzhou, Zhejiang
University (2008)
13