MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2534483166 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-140

Husky Moose Mountain Pipeline: A Case Study of Planning, Environmental Assessment and Construction

2000· article· en· W2534483166 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carol J. Engstrom, Guy M. Goulet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsHusky Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeRecreationEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact statementEnvironmental planningEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementCivil engineeringGeographyEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, Husky Oil Operations Limited and its partner formerly Rigel Oil, (purchased by Talisman Energy in 1999), constructed a 26.2 km pipeline in Kananaskis Country to transport sour oil, solution gas and produced water from Pad #3 on Cox Hill to the Shell Oil Jumping Pound Gas Plant for processing. Kananaskis Country is a 4160 km2 “Planning Area” that has both Prime Protection and Multiple Use designations. Situated just west of Calgary, Alberta, Canada it has considerable recreational and environmental value, including significant wildlife habitat. The original exploration and subsequent pipeline construction applications required separate Alberta Energy & Utilities Board (AEUB) public hearings with both involving significant public consultation. Prior to drilling on the lands that had been purchased more than a decade ago, Husky adopted several governing principles to reduce environmental impact, mitigate damage and foster open and honest communication with other industrial users, regulators, local interest groups and local aboriginal communities. During planning and construction, careful attention was paid to using existing linear disturbances (seismic lines, roads and cutblocks). A variety of environmental studies, that incorporated ecologically-integrated landscape classification and included the use of indicator species such as the Grizzly Bear, were conducted prior to and during the early stages of development. The results of these studies, along with the information gathered from the public consultation, historical and cultural studies and engineering specifications formed the basis for the route selection. Watercourses presented particular challenges during pipeline construction. The pipeline right-of-way (RoW) intercepted 26 small water runs and 19 creeks. Fishery and water quality issues were identified as important issues in the lower Coxhill Creek and Jumpingpound Creeks. As a result, Jumpingpound Creek was directionally drilled at two locations and all other watercourses were open-cut using low-impact techniques. To minimize new RoW clearing, substantial portions of the pipeline were placed in the ditch of the existing road. Husky attributes the success of this project to planning, broad community input and the co-operation and buy-in by the project management team and construction companies.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→