Experiences and learnings from induced seismicity regulation in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have examined the experiences and learnings acquired through the implementation of the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) subsurface order no. 2 (sub or no. 2) traffic light protocol (TLP). On 22 January 2015, a 4.4 [Formula: see text] seismic event occurred near a hydraulic fracturing operation in west-central Alberta and was felt by residents of the town of Fox Creek. On 19 February 2015, the AER issued sub or no. 2 to help manage induced seismicity, as related to hydraulic fracturing of the Duvernay zone in a prescribed area around Fox Creek. Sub or no. 2 requires operators affected by the order to conduct a seismic hazard assessment; prepare a monitoring, mitigation, and response plan; conduct seismic monitoring; and adhere to a TLP. Since sub or no. 2 was issued, two “red light” events (i.e., [Formula: see text]) have occurred in the area. Review and analysis of data and information collected under sub or no. 2 facilitate an improved understanding of the key geologic and operational controls on induced seismicity and allow for an assessment of the efficacy of industry practices and regulatory requirements. We still support the use of local magnitude [Formula: see text] for our TLP based on the purpose and outcomes provided by sub or no. 2. Conversations with operators have suggested that [Formula: see text] orientation should inform the wells’ trajectory with respect to critically stressed faults. The requirement of a response plan was part of the learning process developed under sub or no. 2. Through this exercise, the AER has developed a better understanding of the goals of the response plans, which were better defined through conversations with operators. Sub or no. 2 is consistent with the current state of the evolving science of induced seismicity and has the capacity to change as new information is obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".