MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899326929 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggz281

Direct current resistivity with steel-cased wells

2019· article· en· W2899326929 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey J. Heagy, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingGeologyEnvironmental geologyEconomic geologyCurrent (fluid)Engineering geologyElectrical resistivity and conductivityRegional geologyDrillingSIGNAL (programming language)GeophysicsSeismologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringComputer scienceVolcanismTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The work in this paper is motivated by the increasing use of electrical and electromagnetic methods in geoscience problems where steel-cased wells are present. Applications of interest include monitoring carbon capture and storage and hydraulic fracturing operations. Also of interest is detecting flaws or breaks in degrading steel-casings—such wells pose serious environmental hazards. The general principles of electrical methods with steel-cased wells are understood and several authors have demonstrated that the presence of steel-cased wells can be beneficial for detecting signal due to targets at depth. However, the success of a direct current (DC) resistivity survey lies in the details. Secondary signals might only be a few per cent of the primary signal. In designing a survey, the geometry of the source and receivers, and whether the source is at the top of the casing, inside of it, or beneath the casing will impact measured responses. Also the physical properties and geometry of the background geology, target and casing will have a large impact on the measured data. Because of the small values of the diagnostic signals, it is important to understand the detailed physics of the problem and also to be able to carry out accurate simulations. This latter task is computationally challenging because of the extreme geometry of the wells, which extend kilometers in depth but have millimeter variations in the radial direction, and the extreme variation in the electrical conductivity which is typically 5–7 orders of magnitude larger than that of the background geology. In this paper, we adopt a cylindrical discretization for numerical simulations to investigate three important aspects of DC resistivity in settings with steel-cased wells. (1) We examine the feasibility of using a surface-based DC resistivity survey for diagnosing impairments along a well in a casing integrity experiment. This parameter study demonstrates the impact of the background conductivity, the conductivity of the casing, the depth of the flaw, and the proportion of the casing circumference that is compromised on amplitude of the secondary electric fields measured at the surface. (2) Next, we consider elements of survey design for exciting a conductive or resistive target at depth. We show that conductive targets generate stronger secondary responses than resistive targets, and that having an electrical connection between the target and well can significantly increase the measured secondary responses. (3) Finally, we examine common strategies for approximating the fine-scale structure of a steel cased well with a coarse-scale representation to reduce computational load. We show that for DC resistivity experiments, the product of the conductivity and the cross-sectional area of the casing is the important quantity for controlling the distribution of currents and charges along its length. To promote insight into the physics, we present results by plotting the currents, charges, and electric fields in each of the scenarios examined. All of the examples shown in this paper are built on open-source software and are available as Jupyter notebooks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207