MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490421907

Marine and Petroleum Geology

2013· article· en· W2490421907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard J. Davies, G. R. Foulger, Annette Bindley, Peter Styles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeothermal gradientHydraulic fracturingInduced seismicityBoreholeFault (geology)PoromechanicsPore water pressurePermeability (electromagnetism)Fluid dynamicsFluid pressureSedimentary rockEffective stressGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringSeismologyGeochemistryGeophysicsPorosity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compile published examples of induced earthquakes that have occurred since 1929 that have magnitudes equal to or greater than 1.0. Of the 198 possible examples, magnitudes range up to 7.9. The potential causes and magnitudes are (a) mining (M 1.6e5.6); (b) oil and gas field depletion (M 1.0e7.3); (c) water injection for secondary oil recovery (M 1.9e5.1); (d) reservoir impoundment (M 2.0e7.9); (e) waste disposal (M 2.0e5.3); (f) academic research boreholes investigating induced seismicity and stress (M 2.8e3.1); (g) solution mining (M 1.0e5.2); (h) geothermal operations (M 1.0e4.6) and (i) hydraulic fracturing for recovery of gas and oil from low-permeability sedimentary rocks (M 1.0e3.8). Reactivation of faults and resultant seismicity occurs due to a reduction in effective stress on fault planes. Hydraulic fracturing operations can trigger seismicity because it can cause an increase in the fluid pressure in a fault zone. Based upon the research compiled here we propose that this could occur by three mechanisms. Firstly, fracturing fluid or displaced pore fluid could enter the fault. Secondly, there may be direct connection with the hydraulic fractures and a fluid pressure pulse could be transmitted to the fault. Lastly, due to poroelastic properties of rock, deformation or ‘inflation’ due to hydraulic fracturing could increase fluid pressure in the fault or in fractures connected to the fault. The following pathways for fluid or a fluid pressure pulse are proposed: (a) directly from the wellbore; (b) through new, stimulated hydraulic fractures; (c) through pre-existing fractures and minor faults; or (d) through the pore network of permeable beds or along bedding planes. The reactivated fault could be intersected by the wellbore or it could be 10s to 100s of metres from it. We propose these mechanisms have been responsible for the three known examples of felt seismicity that are probably induced by hydraulic fracturing. These are in the USA, Canada and the UK. The largest such earthquake was M 3.8 and was in the Horn River Basin, Canada. To date, hydraulic fracturing has been a relatively benign mechanism compared to other anthropogenic triggers, probably because of the low volumes of fluid and short pumping times used in hydraulic fracturing operations. These data and analysis should help provide useful context and inform the current debate surrounding hydraulic fracturing technology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.013

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207