Environmental Risk Arising From Well-Construction Failure—Differences Between Barrier and Well Failure, and Estimates of Failure Frequency Across Common Well Types, Locations, and Well Age
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Do oil and gas wells leak to the environment? This paper will show the great majority of wells do not pollute. The purpose of this paper is to explain basic concepts of well construction and illustrate differences between single-barrier failure in multiple-barrier well design and outright well-integrity failure that could lead to pollution by use of published investigations and reviews from data sets of more than 600,000 wells worldwide. For US wells, while individual-barrier failures (containment maintained and no pollution indicated) in a specific well group may range from very low to several percent (depending on geographical area, operator, era, well type, and maintenance quality), actual well-integrity failures are very rare. Well-integrity failure occurs when all barriers fail and a leak is possible. True well-integrity-failure rates are two to three orders of magnitude lower than single-barrier-failure rates. When one of these rare total-well-integrity failures occurs, gas is the most common fluid lost. Common final-barrier leak points are failed gaskets or valves at the surface and are easily and quickly repaired. If the failure is in the subsurface, an outward leak is uncommon because of a lower pressure gradient in the well than in outside formations. Subsurface leaks in oil and gas wells are rare, and routinely comprise exterior-formation salt water leaking into the well toward the lower pressure in the well. Failure frequencies are estimated for wells in several specific sets of environmental conditions (i.e., location, geologic strata, produced-fluid composition, and soils). Estimate accuracy depends on a sufficient database of wells with documented failures, divided into (1) barrier failures in a multiple-barrier system that did not create pollution, and (2) well-integrity failures that created a leak path, whether or not pollution was created. Estimated failure-frequency comparisons are valid only for a specific set of wells operating under the same conditions with similar design and construction quality. Well age and construction era are important variables. There is absolutely no universal definition for well-failure frequency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it