Urban Drilling: Best Practices for Urban Oil and Gas Wells in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recent urban drilling projects in Alberta have met substantial opposition from municipal governments and members of communities within close proximity to the developments. Alberta policymakers only appear to acknowledge urban drilling as a policy issue when a specific project proposal ignites fiery public debate and media coverage. High profile Alberta cases include proposals by Kaiser Exploration Ltd. in Calgary (2012) and Goldenkey Oil Inc. in Lethbridge (2014). Public promises by Alberta's provincial government to address urban drilling at the policy level have been stagnant throughout changes in premiers, energy and municipal affairs ministers, and eventually a wholesale change in government with the 2015 election victory by Alberta's New Democratic Party led by Premier Rachel Notley. This Capstone Project explores and provides a response to the following question: What are best practices for oil and gas wells in Alberta's urban context? For the purposes of this project, the term “urban municipalities” refers to municipalities with populations of 30,000 people and more. Using the geoScout computer program, data and visual representations of drilling activity near and within Alberta's 11 urban municipalities are outlined. Due to the prevalence and frequency of urban drilling in other jurisdictions, their policymakers have moved forward on related issues in more substantive ways than those in Alberta. In this project, the states of Colorado and Texas provide examples of jurisdictions where key issues associated with urban drilling have been addressed at the policy level. The Colorado Oil and Gas Task Force emphasizes the importance of collaboration among local governments, regulators, and energy companies to manage energy developments relative to urban planning. In Texas, setback distances play a significant role in urban drilling policy. However, Texas policymakers have been criticized of using setback distances as a politically-motivated, rather than empirically-designed, tool. Based on findings relative to the scope of urban drilling in Alberta, it is argued that drilling activity factors into Alberta urban municipalities to a degree that justifies provincial policy specific to oil and gas wells near and within urban municipal boundaries. After surveying the broadest landscape of literature and relevant cases, the following best practices should be employed in Alberta urban drilling policy: • Timing: Urban municipal governments receive earlier notification of project proposals. • Engagement: The application stage for proposed projects involves increased participation by urban municipal governments. • Population-based setback distances: Setback distances factor distinctions for urban municipalities into measurements based on population sizes. Through both quantitative and qualitative assessment, it is determined that there is no single, ideal model for urban drilling policy. Instead, it is concluded that a flexible approach to urban drilling policy will serve Alberta most effectively. This approach should employ the identified best practices in the following order, ranked on applicability to Alberta's urban context: 1) Engagement; 2) Timing; and 3) Population-based setback distances. The Modernized Municipal Government Act and City Charter regulation provide mechanisms to implement these best practices, and ultimately improve intergovernmental and community relations over urban drilling projects. The Alberta Energy Regulator continues to control the final decision on proposed projects.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».