MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949622886 · doi:10.1093/jwelb/jwz014

Plugging the holes—new Canadian and US regulations to reduce upstream methane emissions

2019· article· en· W2949622886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allan Ingelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Energy Law & Business · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneGreenhouse gasUpstream (networking)Methane emissionsDownstream (manufacturing)Natural gasEnvironmental scienceEnforcementFossil fuelSettlement (finance)BusinessEnvironmental protectionWaste managementEngineeringFinancePolitical scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the USA and Canada where most of global shale oil and gas development has occurred, due to concerns about climate change the national governments have adopted new regulations to further significantly reduce national methane emissions from the upstream oil and gas industry. The 2016 US Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards and 2018 Canadian methane regulations build on decades old oil and gas conservation schemes to further reduce the volume of methane that is released from facility equipment leaks and venting. In Canada, venting methane at new oil and gas well sites is now prohibited. Operators are required to capture and use a much larger volume of natural gas than in the past. A negotiated settlement of the first US emissions reduction enforcement action was reached in April 2018. The facility operator agreed to pay a civil penalty of US $610,000 and spend a minimum of $2 million to install new technology at its facilities to further reduce methane emissions. The creative settlement agreement contains a comprehensive set of conditions to provide for a reduction in upstream industry emissions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of World Energy Law & BusinessSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207