MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207709984 · doi:10.1115/omae2021-62471

Plug and Abandonment Trends in Albertan Gas Wells

2021· article· en· W3207709984 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. Trudel, Majid Bizhani, I.A. Frigaard

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 10: Petroleum Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFossil fuelAbandonment (legal)DrillingNatural gasStock (firearms)GeologyWell drillingNatural gas fieldPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeographyArchaeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alberta is known to be a significant oil & gas producer with over 468,000 wells drilled in the province since the beginning of the twentieth century. While the majority of these wells were drilled to produce oil, approximately 165,000 gas wells can be found in Alberta and are studied here. This represents a more than six-fold increase over Alberta’s western neighbor, British Columbia, which is known to be a primarily gas producing province. Over 80% of the gas wells in Alberta have yet to enter the abandonment stage. A growing stock of suspended wells can be found in the province which comes with an increase in liability for all parties involved i.e., the operators, the provincial regulator and the Orphan Well Association (OWA). Here we analyze abandonment trends in Alberta, showing that combining the growing suspended well stock with the shorter lifetime associated with the horizontal gas wells currently being drilled in the province, we can expect a wave of well abandonments in the coming decades. We focus only on gas wells, where we can make a comparison with a similar study previously conducted for wells in British Columbia.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 10: Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207