Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although high gas flow rates from shales are a relatively recent phenomenon, the knowledge bases of shale-specific well completions, fracturing and shale well operations have actually been growing for more than three decades and shale gas production reaches back almost one hundred ninety years. During the last decade of gas shale development, projected recovery of shale gas-in-place has increased from about 2% to estimates of about 50%; mainly through the development and adaptation of technologies to fit shale gas developments. Adapting technologies, including multi-stage fracturing of horizontal wells, slickwater fluids with minimum viscosity and simultaneous fracturing, have evolved to increase formation-face contact of the fracture system into the range of 9.2 million m2 (100 million ft2) in a very localized area of the reservoir by opening natural fractures. These technologies have made possible development of enormous gas reserves that were completely unavailable only a few years ago. Current and next generation technologies promise even more energy availability with advances in hybrid fracs, fracture complexity, fracture flow stability and methods of re-using water used in fracturing. This work surveyed over 350 shale completion, fracturing and operations publications, linking geosciences and engineering information together to relay learnings that will identify both intriguing information on selective opening and stabilizing of micro-fracture systems within the shales and new fields of endeavor needed to achieve the next level of shale development advancement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it