MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015428631 · doi:10.1115/ipc2002-27136

Environmental Mitigation Associated With the Installation of a Natural Gas Pipeline in the Vicinity of an Artesian Well

2002· article· en· W2015428631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mario E. Buszynski

Bibliographic record

Venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArtesian aquiferNatural gasBoreholeWater qualityPetroleum engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Mining engineeringWater resource managementEnvironmental engineeringGeologyAquiferGroundwaterWaste managementEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the fall of 2001, Enbridge Consumers Gas proposed to install a 190 mm extra-high pressure steel pipeline in proximity to an artesian well on the Oak Ridges Moraine in southern Ontario. This well is located within the Regional Municipality of Durham and it is used by over 300 persons per day as their drinking water source because of very high water quality. Potential impacts to drinking water quality have taken on greater importance because of the Walkerton tragedy, in which a number of people died from drinking contaminated municipal water. The Region of Durham was especially concerned because of the large number of people who use this artesian well as their drinking water source. The Region did not want to close the well during construction as this could be taken as an admission that construction might negatively impact water quality. At the same time, they wanted to ensure that water quantity and quality was maintained. SENES Consultants Limited (“SENES”) was retained to develop and implement an environmental management plan to ensure that no negative impacts would occur during construction. The plan involved characterization of the water-bearing zone in terms of depth, type of deposit and direction of flow, relative to the drinking water source. This was undertaken through the use of test pits, boreholes and piezometers. Potential construction impacts were identified. In this case, the natural gas pipeline was to be installed by a directional drill that injects bentonite (drilling mud) to provide lubrication and to keep the drill hole from collapsing. Mitigation measures related to containment of bentonite and fuel handling in the vicinity of the artesian well were prescribed. The rationale for directional drilling this section of the pipeline was to prevent erosion of the steep slopes and to undercross a watercourse. The water-bearing deposit consisted of a sandy-gravel layer that was found to occur at a depth of 3.65 meters. Every effort was made to maintain the drill hole for the pipeline above this depth. In addition to sampling the artesian well for chemical and bacterial parameters in advance of construction and upon completion of work in the vicinity, water from the artesian well and one of the piezometers was checked for turbidity every two hours. Other contingency plans included digging “burp-holes” to reduce the potential for bentonite frac-outs and having a water supply truck on stand-by should turbidity levels reach unacceptable levels. Construction proceeded smoothly. Minor frac-outs occurred and were appropriately contained. The turbidity readings and water quality samples taken before, during and post-construction confirmed that there were no negative impacts on the artesian well. The methods used on this project are directly applicable to other pipelines that may be constructed in the vicinity of artesian wells.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and BSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207