Identifying Best Practices in Hydraulic Fracturing Using Virtual Intelligence Techniques
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 Hydraulic fracturing is an economic way of increasing gas well productivity. Hydraulic fracturing is routinely performed on many gas wells in fields that contain hundreds of wells. Companies have developed databases that include information such as methods and materials used during the fracturing process of their wells. These databases usually include general information such as date of the job, name of the service company performing the job, fluid type and fluid amount, proppant type and proppant amount, and pumped rate. Sometimes more detail information may be available such as breakers, amount of nitrogen, and ISIP, to name a few. These data usually is of little use if some of the complex 3-D hydraulic fracture simulators are used to analyze them. But valuable information can be deduced from such data using virtual intelligence tools. The process covered in this paper takes the available data and couples it with general information from each well (things like latitude, longitude and elevation), any information available from log analysis and production data and uses a data mining and knowledge discovery process to identify a set of best practices for the particular field. The technique is capable of patching the data in places that certain information is missing. Complex virtual intelligence routines are used to insure that the information content of the database is not compromised during the data patching process. The conclusion of analysis is a set of best practices that has been implemented in a particular field on a well or on a group of wells basis. Since the entire process is mostly data driven we let the data "speak for itself" and "tell us" what has "worked" and what "has not worked" in that particular field and how the process can be enhanced on a single well basis. In this paper the results of applying this process to Medina formation in New York State will be presented. This data set was furnished by Belden & Blake during a GRI / NYSERDA sponsored projects. This process provides an important step toward achieving a comprehensive set of tools and processes for data mining, knowledge discovery, and data-knowledge fusion from data sets in oil and gas industry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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