MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W626240371 · doi:10.1071/aj13015

A rapid and flexible method for simulation of CSG water production: application in the Surat and Bowen basins

2014· article· en· W626240371 on OpenAlexaff
Roald Strand, Greg Keir, Lucy Reading, Brent Usher, Chris Dickinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogeologyScale (ratio)Flexibility (engineering)Extraction (chemistry)GroundwaterCivil engineeringHydrology (agriculture)GeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is significant interest in estimating volumes of water extracted during production as the CSG industry develops in the Surat and Bowen basins in Queensland, Australia. Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd (KCB) was commissioned by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) to develop a tool to estimate where, when, and how much CSG water will be produced in these areas under various industry expansion scenarios. The tool, which is now being maintained and further developed to interface with GIS software by the Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry (CWiMI), was built to balance numerical complexity against relative flexibility and simulation speed. This was achieved by an approach that differs from conventional reservoir engineering models, including: the use of non-equilibrium groundwater flow equations (the Theis equation) in conjunction with semi-empirical type-curve based methods;calculation of well interference effects and corresponding spatial scaling effects in a relatively large-scale spatially discretised model; and,modification of flows predicted using the Theis equation to reflect the dual-phase nature of CSG extraction, and the unique hydrogeological setting of the eastern margin of the Surat Basin. The tool was verified against equivalent Theis equation calculations and type curves provided by CSG proponents. The tool was demonstrated to adequately represent the unique physical mechanisms of CSG extraction, and produce robust estimates of CSG water production at a regional scale, while not relying on excessively complex numerical models or excessive data input requirements.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207