Converting Non-Producing Oil and Gas Wells for Geothermal Energy Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geothermal energy has gained significant attention over the years as a renewable alternative to traditional fossil fuel energy systems. Non-producing oil and gas wells may be repurposed as geothermal wells for heating or electricity generation. Converting non-producing oil and gas wells into geothermal energy production can offset the costs of drilling new geothermal wells and provide an incentive for remediating non-producing well sites. However, the absence of regulations for geothermal well conversion in North America and Europe leaves many unresolved questions about the ownership and financial responsibility of the wells. Here, we present an analysis of non-producing well attributes, such as depth, location, type, and proximity to geothermal boreholes, and well integrity indicators, including methane emission measurements and surface casing vent flows, to identify suitable sites for geothermal energy conversion in the United States and Canada. We also explore various case studies of geothermal well conversion from around the world, comparing different geothermal systems and their applicability to Canada. The findings from this research will be useful in supporting policy development and regulatory frameworks for geothermal conversion projects in Canada, the United States, and around the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".