MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321184211 · doi:10.1088/2634-4505/acbced

Reducing oil and gas well leakage: a review of leakage drivers, methane detection and repair options

2023· review· en· W4321184211 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Khalil El Hachem, Mary Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsLeakage (economics)CasingEnvironmental scienceWellheadAquiferMethaneFossil fuelGroundwaterPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental engineeringGeologyEngineeringWaste managementGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oil and gas wells (OGWs) with integrity failures can be a conduit for methane and contaminant leakage to groundwater aquifers, surface water bodies and the atmosphere. While there have been numerous reviews addressing OGW leakage, there is a gap in the literature regarding an examination of OGW leakage that encompasses both abandoned and active wells, as well as factors that impact leakage, methane emission measurements, and options for repairing leaks. Here, we review the literature to evaluate factors and policies affecting leakage of active and abandoned OGWs, studies quantifying OGW methane emissions, and leakage repair and emission reduction options. Furthermore, our review places a greater emphasis on abandoned oil and gas wells and does not focus on one well type, such as unconventional wells. Of the 38 factors in published literature reviewed here, studies find that 15 (39%) factors, including geographic location, well deviation, casing quality and plugging status consistently affect OGW leakage. For 15 (39%) factors, including surface casing depth, well elevation and land cover, one or two studies show that they do not affect OGW leakage. For the remaining eight (21%) factors, including well age, studies show conflicting results. Although increased frequency of well monitoring and repair can lead to reduced OGW leakage, several studies indicate that monitoring and repair requirements are not always enforced. Moreover, we find 13 studies quantifying OGW methane emissions to the atmosphere at the oil and gas wellhead scale across Canada and the United States with major gaps in the geographical distribution of the collected data. Moreover, although studies measuring abandoned wells include measurements from orphaned wells, available measurements do not differentiate between orphaned and abandoned OGWs, which is important for policy makers aiming to quantify methane emission reductions of plugging hundreds of thousands of orphaned wells. To repair OGW leakage, we find that most studies focus on well cement and casing repair. There are alternatives to cement and casing repair that only reduce methane emissions, such as soil methane oxidation, but their widespread applicability requires further study. Overall, our review of factors affecting OGW leakage can be used to identify OGWs with high leakage potential and guide OGW leakage monitoring and repair policies, thereby reducing climate and environmental impacts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research Infrastructure and SustainabilitySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207