MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908873168 · doi:10.4095/299734

Induced seismicity associated with shale gas development

2017· report· en· W2908873168 on OpenAlexaffabout
Honn Kao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShale gasInduced seismicityGeologyOil shalePetroleum engineeringUnconventional oilSeismologyEarth scienceMining engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of unconventional oil and gas in North America has caused a significant increase of seismicity in areas of intense injection operations, including both hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal. These induced earthquakes have attracted considerable media attention due to their potential seismic hazards. In 2012, NRCan initiated the Induced Seismicity Research (ISR) Activity as part of the Shale Gas Research Project, under the Environmental Geoscience Program, to investigate the possible relationship between hydraulic fracturing (HF) of shale gas and the changing pattern of local seismicity. In 2015, the activity was expanded to a Project to include studies of all injection-related seismic events. NRCan's ISR Project has three major tasks. The first is to improve real-time earthquake-monitoring capability in major shale gas basins where the station coverage of regional seismograph network is sparse. The second is to establish the baseline of regional seismic pattern (i.e., the pre-development reference line) for places where the development potential of unconventional oil and gas is deemed high in the foreseeable future. The third is to conduct targeted studies on significant induced events to understand the relationship between their seismogenesis and man-made operations. In collaborations with many partners, new real-time broadband seismograph stations have been installed in BC, AB, NB, QC, NT, and YT. Studies of local seismicity before, during, and after HF operations have been completed for the Horn River Basin (northeast BC), the Moncton and Sussex areas (southern NB), and the Norman Wells area of the central Mackenzie Valley (NT). An increase of local seismicity in BC and AB is spatially and temporarily correlated with the peak period of injection operations associated with shale gas development. Injection volume appears to play a more important role than injection pressure in causing induced events. No abnormal seismicity can be observed when the injection volume is small. The initial effect of increasing injected volume is an increase in earthquake frequency but not magnitude. Relatively large induced events occurred only when the monthly injected volume becomes very large. However, large injection volume seems to be a necessary condition for the occurrence of relatively large induced event, but not a sufficient one. Research results of the largest hydraulic fracturing-induced earthquake to date (the August 17, 2015, Mw 4.6, northern Montney earthquake) indicate that the peak ground acceleration can be as high as 17% g at an epicentral distance of 5 km, suggesting that seismic hazards due to induced seismicity is not negligible.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→