MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068822340 · doi:10.2118/139949-ms

Integrated Geodynamic Monitoring and Risk Assessment of Occurrence of Seismic Deformation Processes Related to Development of Raw Hydrocarbon Deposits

2010· article· en· W2068822340 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMassifHydrocarbon explorationEarth scienceNatural (archaeology)Fossil fuelNatural gas fieldPetroleum engineeringNatural gasSeismologyTectonicsPaleontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Karachaganak field is a large onshore gas-oil-condensate accumulation with initial hydrocarbons in place of approximately 9 billion barrels of condensate and more than 45 trillion cubic feet of gas. The Karachaganak structure is a carbonate massif that comprises a heterogeneous reef and platform carbonate complex measuring 30 km by 15 km. Geodynamic events of natural and man-induced genesis occurring during the development of hydrocarbon fields attract considerable attention from both the general public and engineering specialists alike. This paper highlights the necessity of geodynamic monitoring in the course of a hydrocarbon field development and describes the status of geodynamic monitoring in the Karachaganak field located in West Kazakhstan Oblast. Lack of control over geodynamic events of natural and man-induced genesis can lead to irreversible consequences (induced earthquakes in USA, Canada and other countries), that can be damaging to the environment, and costly to remediate. Identification, prognosis and prevention of such consequences are fundamental tasks of the geodynamic monitoring in the course of development of hydrocarbon fields. Therefore, the task of monitoring geodynamic processes during the development of oil and gas fields draws special attention from operating companies and government authorities. Implementation of geodynamic monitoring prior to commencement of and during commercial field development is a mandatory requirement of the RoK legislation. A primary purpose of geodynamic monitoring is to ensure environmental safety by taking necessary measures to mitigate and prevent a risk of occurrence of uncontrolled events associated with geodynamic processes during and after field development. In Karachaganak field the monitoring over geodynamic processes began in 2002 by initiating a local seismological monitoring program which continued until the end of 2007. In 2008 a programme of integrated geodynamic monitoring was developed. Implementation of the programme, which envisages application of such methods as levelling, gravimetric and GPS surveys, and seismological monitoring, will allow the operator to thoroughly study geodynamic processes in Karachaganak field. In June of 2009 a benchmark survey was conducted, and as more data from repeat surveys becomes available, it will be possible to investigate patterns and temporal development of geodynamic processes such as an activation of faults, compaction and lateral displacements of rock masses, surface subsidence, and seismicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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