MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1654083295 · doi:10.1029/2003wr002997

Analytical solutions for leakage rates through abandoned wells

2004· article· en· W1654083295 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferLaplace transformSuperposition principleSlug testInjection wellLeakage (economics)GeologyPetroleum engineeringGroundwaterMathematicsMathematical analysisGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disposal of waste fluids via injection into deep saline aquifers is practiced in a variety of industries. Injection takes place in sedimentary basins that often have a history of oil and gas exploration and production, which means that wells other than those used for waste disposal may exist in the vicinity of the injection site. These existing wells provide possible pathways for leakage of waste fluids toward the shallow subsurface and the land surface. For single‐phase flows of liquids with essentially constant properties, the equations governing the system are linear, and solutions may be written using the superposition principle. Because leakage through existing wells produces a time‐varying flux rate, the solution of the governing equations involves convolution integrals. Previous solutions have addressed the problem of one injection well, one existing (passive) well, and a simple geometry of two aquifers separated by an aquitard by use of Laplace transforms. Even for this simple case, inversion of the transform is difficult. Solutions involving more than one passive well have not been developed. Nor have solutions been developed for more than two aquifers and one aquitard. Realistic injection cases often involve layered systems with multiple aquifers and aquitards, as well as multiple passive wells, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. Solutions for the general case of multiple aquifers and wells may be developed through introduction of approximations to the well function and appropriate simplification of the convolution integral. Such a solution is computationally simple. Comparison to solutions using the full (Laplace transform) solution indicates that the new solution procedure produces excellent results. Application of the new solution to a case of multiple passive wells shows that the cumulative leakage flux in the passive wells is not a simple sum of the single‐well case, owing to leakage‐induced drawdown around the passive wells. In addition, application to the case of multiple aquifers and aquitards demonstrates the importance of leakage into intervening aquifers as a mechanism to mitigate leakage into shallow zones, a process referred to as the “elevator model.” The new analytical solution provides a tool to analyze practical injection problems and forms a foundation on which more complex solutions, such as those involving injection of a nonaqueous fluid into a deep brine formation, may be based.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.261 · 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