## 6 Discussion  
The findings presented in this work underscore the need for comprehensive monitoring and robust calibration of models to effectively manage the geomechanical risks associated with CO\({}_{2}\) injection. The interdependencies between rock mechanical properties and operational parameters revealed through this analysis serve as a foundation for future research aimed at optimizing CO\({}_{2}\) storage strategies and ensuring the integrity of geological storage sites. Expanding upon previous work on the positioning of a CO\({}_{2}\) injection well for GCS [57; 58], our study discusses the impact of this placement of the well in a flank of the reservoir on the vertical displacements caused by the injection as a subsequent impact on the monitoring strategy. Adding to the discourse on geomechanical risks associated with GCS initiated by [15; 18; 19], our research emphasizes the importance of conducting sensitivity analyses on geomechanical modeling for the strategic selection of monitoring locations. This approach builds upon the insights from [21; 22; 23; 24], who advocated for the need for accurate characterization of geomechanical properties and injection rates. Our study not only corroborates these findings but also advances the methodology by demonstrating how such analyses can optimize monitoring strategies, thereby enhancing the predictive accuracy and safety of GCS operations. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of explicitly modeling the flow within the caprock, a critical element often not addressed in coupled geomechanics studies that could help evaluate the true impact of geomechanics on the caprock. This underscores the impact of incorporating flow modeling in caprock analysis to ensure a comprehensive understanding of CO\({}_{2}\) storage safety and efficacy. Moreover, our research sheds light on the critical interplay between injection rates, rock properties, and pressure buildup, a complex relationship that has been explored to a lesser extent in the literature. By providing a detailed analysis of how these factors influence CO\({}_{2}\) migration and ground deformation, our study offers a novel perspective that challenges the conventional selection of wellhead monitoring sites, as typically suggested by previous studies, like [40; 41]. We reveal the limitations of traditional monitoring approaches in capturing the nuanced geomechanical responses to CO\({}_{2}\) injection, suggesting a reevaluation of monitoring strategies to better manage the associated risks. It is important to consider the limitations of this study to ensure a nuanced understanding of our findings and to accurately direct future avenues of research. One consideration is the foundation of our analysis on simulations derived from a singular reservoir model. While providing valuable insights into the specific geological configuration examined, this approach may not encompass the diversity found in various geological settings where GCS is applicable. The results, while enlightening for the studied scenario, may not be broadly generalizable across all possible configurations of GCS. For reservoirs in which permeability is greatly affected by the changes in stress during injection, like naturally fractured rocks, the methodology could benefit from the integration of consistent coupling mechanisms. Additionally, the inclusion of chemical reactions in our modeling efforts could offer a deeper understanding of how these processes influence the geomechanical properties of subsurface formations, potentially unveiling new insights into the long-term stability and integrity of CO\({}_{2}\) storage sites. Further investigation using fine-scale models is recommended to delve deeper into the mechanisms of enhanced CO\({}_{2}\) dissolution. The use of a finer grid in this model can provide a more detailed and accurate representation of the dissolution and other trapping processes.