MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295037292 · doi:10.1029/2022jb024354

Limited Earthquake Interaction During a Geothermal Hydraulic Stimulation in Helsinki, Finland

2022· article· en· W4295037292 on OpenAlexaff
Grzegorz Kwiatek, Patricia Martínez‐Garzón, Jörn Davidsen, P. E. Malin, Aino Karjalainen, Marco Bohnhoff, Georg Dresen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersHelmholtz Association
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeophoneGeothermal gradientSeismologyGeologyHydraulic fracturingMagnitude (astronomy)BoreholeRock mass classificationGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate induced seismicity associated with a hydraulic stimulation campaign performed in 2020 in the 5.8 km deep geothermal OTN‐2 well near Helsinki, Finland as part of the St1 Deep Heat project. A total of 2,875 m 3 of fresh water was injected during 16 days at well‐head pressures <70 MPa and with flow rates between 400 and 1,000 L/min. The seismicity was monitored using a high‐resolution seismic network composed of 10 borehole geophones surrounding the project site and a borehole array of 10 geophones located in adjacent OTN‐3 well. A total of 6,121 induced earthquakes with local magnitudes were recorded during and after the stimulation campaign. The analyzed statistical parameters include magnitude‐frequency b ‐value, interevent time and interevent time ratio, as well as magnitude correlations. We find that the b ‐value remained stationary for the entire injection period suggesting limited stress build‐up or limited fracture network coalescence in the reservoir. The seismicity during the stimulation neither shows signatures of magnitude correlations, nor temporal clustering or anticlustering beyond those arising from varying injection rates. The interevent time statistics are characterized by a Poissonian time‐varying distribution. The calculated parameters indicate no earthquake interaction. Focal mechanisms suggest that the injection activated a spatially distributed network of similarly oriented fractures. The seismicity displays stable behavior with no signatures pointing toward a runaway event. The cumulative seismic moment is proportional to the cumulative hydraulic energy and the maximum magnitude is controlled by injection rate. The performed study provides a base for implementation of time‐dependent probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the project site.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207