MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392594847 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-205

Oil and gas wellbore leakage in Canada: key reporting uncertainties and measurement knowledge gaps

2024· preprint· en· W4392594847 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott P. Seymour, Donglai Xie, Mary Kang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellboreLeakage (economics)Petroleum engineeringKey (lock)Environmental scienceForensic engineeringComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringComputer securityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depleted oil and gas formations and associated wells can be exploited for use as energy or carbon dioxide storage infrastructure. However, a loss of wellbore integrity can result in the uncontrolled migration of fluids out of the well, risking groundwater contamination and releasing greenhouse gases (e.g., methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen) into the atmosphere. In Canada, emissions specifically related to wellbore integrity and subsurface-based leakage have been monitored, measured, and reported by the oil and gas industry for more than a decade, resulting in some of the largest datasets to track such wellbore emissions. While these reporting systems were not necessarily designed to track methane emissions, both the provincial and federal governments nevertheless use these data to estimate methane emissions associated with subsurface wellbore leakage. Moreover, incomplete reporting by the industry has resulted in highly uncertain methane emission magnitudes, and attempts by federal and provincial governments to resolve these issues yield emission estimates varying by more than a factor of two. Further, poorly understood emission mechanisms are likely to yield even more uncertainty in total emissions from wellbore leakage.In this presentation, we illustrate the highly uncertain nature of methane emissions due to subsurface wellbore leakage in Canada using industry-reported data for the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, regions covering more than 80% of crude oil and 95% of natural gas production nationally. We illustrate the sensitivity of these methane emission estimates using a variety of assumptions employed by the different governments for incomplete data, highlighting the key knowledge gaps for this source of emission. The different assumptions result in estimates varying by a factor of 3, and more troublingly, connotate fundamentally different understandings about wellbore leakage causes, sources of fluid, and progression of emission rates over time. We make initial recommendations for wellbore leakage monitoring and measurements to improve Canada’s methane quantification but with more broad applicability for monitoring well fluid leakage more generally.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.026
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→