MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221102740 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-9373

Variation in induced seismicity productivity by alteration of injection parameters: a comparative case study at three hydraulic fracturing wells in the Kiskatinaw area, British Columbia, Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4221102740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marco Pascal Roth, Kilian B. Kemna, Alessandro Verdecchia, Ricarda M. Wache, Andrés Felipe Peña Castro, R. M. Harrington, Yajing Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityHydraulic fracturingGeologyStructural basinProductivitySeismologyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) has experienced an increase in hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations in the last decade, accompanied by an increase in the number of felt earthquakes, including a Mw 4.6 on 17 August 2015 near Fort St. John and a ML 4.5 (Mw 4.2) on 30 November 2018 near Dawson Creek. While only a small percentage of HF operations induce seismicity, the majority of moderate-sized earthquakes occur in close spatial proximity to HF wells and temporal proximity to individual HF injection stages within the tight shale play of the Montney Formation. Whereas statistical analysis of an enhanced seismicity catalog suggests that the majority of seismicity occurs following HF operations in the relatively older and deeper compartments of the Montney Formation (Lower Montney; LM) and a low number of events are associated with the relatively younger and shallower layers (Upper Montney; UM), the detailed association and triggering mechanism(s) remains unclear. In this study, we investigate induced earthquake source parameter variations resulting from spatial and/or temporal alteration of injection parameters, including injection time, depth, and volume, at three well pads operating between 2018 and 2020 in the Kiskatinaw area. We use dense local station coverage to create an enhanced seismicity catalog with double-difference relative hypocenter relocations to highlight potential fault orientations, confirmed by focal mechanism solutions. We estimate static stress drop values at the individual well pads and their variation over time as well as variation with the choice of empirical Greens function. We also investigate the temporal changes of the VP/VS-ratio in localized areas following HF operations as a proxy for increased fracture density and/or compliance. The case study at three specific sites targeting both the UM and LM layers investigates the relative influence of a number of factors on the spatial and temporal distribution of source properties. Factors include the scale of HF injection parameters, the target formation layer, and site-specific factors, such as localized fluid accumulation. Preliminary results show that injection in the UM generally leads to significantly fewer earthquakes than injection in the LM, and that lateral variations in compartment properties may significantly influence the seismic response. Moreover, we investigate if repetitive injection at the same wellhead may repeatedly (re)activate sets of faults/fractures and lead to increased hydraulic connectivity between the target sedimentary layers and deeper, pre-existing basement faults. An increase in connectivity would imply an increased potential for triggering large mainshocks.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→