MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399981130 · doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0418

Sealing faults and fluid-induced seismicity

2024· article· en· W4399981130 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zahra Esmaeilzadeh, David W. Eaton, N. Hosseini, D. Zeinabady

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeologyPore water pressureFault (geology)Permeability (electromagnetism)Hydraulic fracturingPetrologyFluid pressureSlip (aerodynamics)Geotechnical engineeringSeismologyMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sealing faults are nearly impermeable barriers that can form boundaries between subsurface pore-pressure domains. In hydrocarbon systems, sealing faults commonly form part of a structural trap; they are thus important elements for future storage of CO 2 and other gases in depleted reservoirs. The Triassic Montney Formation in western Canada hosts low-permeability gas reservoirs containing sealing faults that have previously been assumed to compartmentalize pressure domains. In this study, we show that the distribution of induced seismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing (HF) exhibits a statistically significant spatial correlation with zones of high lateral gradient in pore pressure. These high-gradient zones are interpreted as sealing fault systems. The largest induced seismicity sequence, including a 4.5 M L mainshock on 30 November 2018, occurred during HF treatments in two horizontal wells, between which there is an exceptionally large contrast (~10 MPa) in measured pore pressure. Numerical simulation of a simplified model of a hydraulic fracture intersecting a nearby vertical fault, followed by fault rupture using rate-and-state friction rheology, generates results that are in good agreement with observed strike-slip faulting near one of the HF wells. Our study demonstrates that sealing faults exhibit previously unrecognized behaviour that may be important for understanding induced seismicity risk. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Induced seismicity in coupled subsurface systems’.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207