Changes in Deep Groundwater Flow Patterns Related to Oil and Gas Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large volumes of saline formation water are both produced from and injected into sedimentary basins as a by‐product of oil and gas production. Despite this, the location of production and injection wells has not been studied in detail at the regional scale and the effects on deep groundwater flow patterns (i.e., below the base of groundwater protection) possibly driving fluid flow toward shallow aquifers remain uncertain. Even where injection and production volumes are equal at the basin scale, local changes in hydraulic head can occur due to the distribution of production and injection wells. In the Canadian portion of the Williston Basin, over 4.6 × 10 9 m 3 of water has been co‐produced with 5.4 × 10 8 m 3 of oil, and over 5.5 × 10 9 m 3 of water has been injected into the subsurface for salt water disposal or enhanced oil recovery. Despite approximately equal values of produced and injected fluids at the sedimentary basin scale over the history of development, cumulative fluid deficits and surpluses per unit area in excess of a few 100 mm are present at scales of a few 100 km 2 . Fluid fluxes associated with oil and gas activities since 1950 likely exceed background groundwater fluxes in these areas. Modeled pressures capable of creating upward hydraulic gradients are predicted for the Midale Member and Mannville Group, two of the strata with the highest amounts of injection in the study area. This could lead to upward leakage of fluids if permeable pathways, such as leaky wells, are present.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".