MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W95268571

Induced seismicity risk in Irani oil and gas fields

2008· article· en· W95268571 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Jalali, Maurice B. Dusseault, Hossein Memarian, Mohammad-Reza Zare

Bibliographic record

VenueThe 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeomechanicsGeologyContext (archaeology)Structural basinSeismologyNatural gas fieldOil fieldSedimentary rockNatural gasGeomorphologyGeochemistryPaleontologyGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Zagros Basin, which extends in a NW-SE orientation across southwestern Iran, is a large tectonically disturbed sedimentary basin that is oil-rich and which has an elevated natural seismicity level. Much of the region appears to be close to criticality, and anthropogenic perturbations can lead to triggering of seismic activity. This article assesses the baseline seismic rate and induced seismicity linked to oil and natural gas development activities in the reservoir structures in the Zagros Basin in the south and southwest of Iran. According to the location analyses of the earthquake data and the b-values map, some reservoirs have a particularly high b-value and these sites of concentrations of induced earthquakes were selected for further analyses. Among these selected reservoirs, Field B, one of the biggest producing oil fields located in the southwest of Iran, was studied. The injection and production history of the field is compared with the annual seismicity recorded for the field and a good correlation was found. The data are discussed in the context of criticality in the natural stress field. A few simple calculations of injection and depletion effects suggest that the seismicity field represents a valuable data source for improved geomechanics management of oil and gas production activities in critically stressed cases.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS)Same topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207