MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2891283634 · doi:10.1190/segam2018-2996360.1

Fluid flow and thermal modeling for tracking induced seismicity near the Graham disposal well, British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2891283634 on OpenAlexaffabout
Behrooz Koohmareh Hosseini, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeologyFluid dynamicsSeismologyHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep injection of saline formation waters that are co-produced with hydrocarbons is a common practice in oil and gas operations. Such saltwater disposal (SWD) requires a permeable formation with large lateral extent that is not in hydrological contact with potable groundwater. In some areas, such as the U.S. Midwest and parts of Western Canada, large-volume saltwater disposal has been linked to anomalous induced seismicity. This study focuses on multi-physics numerical simulation of SWD at the Graham pool in northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Saltwater injection into a previous Debolt gas producer was initiated in 2001, with M > 3 induced seismicity commencing in 2006. Epicenters of induced earthquakes are located north of the injection well, along the strike of a system faults that bound the structurally controlled depleted gas reservoir. Fluid flow and thermal processes were simulated in order to history match with injection and pressure data. Model scenarios predict a pressure increase of up to 1 MPa in the vicinity of induced seismicity, at the time of onset of M > 3 events. Presentation Date: Thursday, October 18, 2018 Start Time: 8:30:00 AM Location: 210C (Anaheim Convention Center) Presentation Type: Oral

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→