2011 Napa Hedberg Research Conference report on enhanced geothermal systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists sponsored a Hedberg Research Conference on Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Napa, California, March 18 to 23, 2011. The workshop was attended by 67 participants from 10 different countries: United States, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway. No large energy segment grows based on skill sets possessed by one or a few individuals alone. In the case of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS, also known as “engineered GS”), this was brought home to all participants through a set of posters and presentations on national and regional programs. A presentation by Bendall et al. representing the primary industries and resource agency of South Australia was very effective in conveying how to manage communication between and facilitation among the national research groups and dedicated geothermal research centers. David Blackwell's geothermal laboratory at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas serves a similar function in the United States. They conduct the dual responsibilities of basic research on the national U.S. heat-flow database and are heavily engaged in geothermal developments related to oil and gas production throughout the Gulf Coast region and elsewhere. The International Geothermal Center (GZB) in Bochum, Germany, is yet another model, as reported by Rolf Bracke and Volker Wittig. The state of North Rhine–Westphalia is investing in a coiled tube drilling rig for use by the GZB at Hochschule Bochum. The rig will drill a deep well on the university campus and fracture the rocks between multiple lateral wellbores. The resulting geothermal field will be developed to provide overall heating for the GZB and, if possible, for the rest of the university. The GZB is also charged with educating the public about the relative risks of subsurface engineering actions. For example, the public will be able to observe the relative seismic effects …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".