Bibliographic record
Abstract
These contract efforts involved the demonstration of a unique liquid free stimulation technology which was, at the beginning of these efforts, in 1993 unavailable in the US. The process had been developed, and patented in Canada in 1981, and held promise for stimulating liquid sensitive reservoirs in the US. The technology differs from that conventionally used in that liquid carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}), instead of water is the base fluid. The CO{sub 2} is pumped as a liquid and then vaporizes at reservoir conditions, and because no other liquids or chemicals are used, a liquid free fracture is created. The process requires a specialized closed system blender to mix the liquid CO{sub 2} with proppant under pressure. These efforts were funded to consist of up to 21 cost-shared stimulation events. Because of the vagaries of CO{sub 2} supplies, service company support and operator interest only 19 stimulation events were performed in Montana, New Mexico, and Texas. Final reports have been prepared for each of the four demonstration groups, and the specifics of those demonstrations are summarized. A summary of the demonstrations of a novel liquid-free stimulation process which was performed in four groups of ''Candidate Wells'' situated in Crockett Co., TX; San Juan Co., NM; Phillips Co., MT; and Blaine Co., MT. The stimulation process which employs CO{sub 2} as the working fluid and the production responses were compared with those from wells treated with conventional stimulation technologies, primarily N{sub 2} foam, excepting those in Blaine Co., MT where the reservoir pressure is too low to clean up spent stimulation liquids. A total of 19 liquid-free CO{sub 2}/sand stimulations were performed in 16 wells and the production improvements were generally uneconomic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".