Detailing the relationship between hydraulic fracturing parameters and induced seismicity using small-magnitude earthquakes 
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The extensive development over the last decade of low-permeability tight shale formations in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) using hydraulic fracturing (HF) techniques for oil and gas exploration has been associated with  an increasing number of M3+ earthquakes (e.g., M<sub>L</sub> 4.5 on 30 November 2018 near Dawson Creek, and a M<sub>w </sub>4.6 on 17 August 2016 near Fort St. John). Avoiding economic losses due to operational shutdowns and mitigating damage caused by ground shaking requires developing quantitative relationships between operational parameters and the rate of fault activation in areas of low historical seismicity rates such as the WCSB.</p><p>Here we present the first results of a detailed study of the relationship between earthquake occurrence and operational parameters using dense seismic array and the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission operational database to quantitatively assess the relative influence of operational parameters and geological conditions on earthquake generation. We first enhance a local, automatically generated seismic catalog of > 8000 events in the Kiskatinaw (Montney Formation) in the time period between July 2017 -  December 2020 area using a multi-station matched-filter approach.  We then use a machine learning picker as an independent detection algorithm for the same time period and retain events with the best initial locations detected by both the matched-filter and machine-learning approaches. The combined approach leads to  > 30,000 additional earthquakes, which we relocate using a double-difference technique, lowering the magnitude of completeness M<sub>c</sub> from ~1.3 to ~0.2.</p><p>As shown by several previous studies, while most earthquakes show a clear spatio-temporal correlation with HF operations, the majority of HF operations are not associated with felt earthquakes (e.g., M3+). To investigate the correlation between individual HF stage stimulation and earthquake occurrence, we correlate operational and geological characteristics with > 13000 HF stages. Geological data consists of the target formation for injection, which consists of either the Lower or Upper Montney Formations for the majority of stages. We then use a gradient-boosted decision tree machine learning algorithm combined with an approach to explain the model predictions to assess whether a specific stage is seismogenic. The decision-tree-algorithm allows us to estimate the importance of each injection parameter for the generation of seismicity. First results show that the target formation is the most influential parameter, where the Lower Montney Formation is more prone to higher rates of seismicity. In addition, the total pumped fluid volume and the maximum treating pressure are the important injection parameters that are positively correlated with seismicity. In contrast, the average injection rate and breakdown pressure may be relatively less influencial. We will present the results for specific stages and discuss the importance of their injection parameters in relation to seismicity. Our results could help to determine why only some HF wells are seismogenic.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".