Unstable Displacement: A Missing Factor in Fracturing Fluid Recovery
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 Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing for stimulating tight reservoirs requires a significant volume of fracturing fluid, which is usually water-base. Water recovery is critical due to environmental considerations, water shortage, and formation damage. This work aims at investigating the role of gravity, fingering, and capillarity on water drainage in propped fractures. We conduct two sets of drainage experiments. In the first set, we investigate the effect of size, size distribution, and wetting properties of proppants on water recovery. In the second set, we conduct drainage experiments in a physical fracture model. In this model, the proppants are packed in the space between two sheets of glass, and the pack is saturated with the fracturing fluid. This simulates the initial condition before opening the well for flowback. For simulating the water drainage in the fractures above, and below the horizontal well, gas is injected from the top and bottom of the cell, respectively. For gravity-stable tests where water drains downward, the recovery is controlled by capillary forces, which depend on interfacial tension and proppant size. For gravity-unstable tests where water drains upward, the recovery is poor due to the formation of gas fingers. Increasing the injection pressure does not enhance water recovery in the upward displacement. We conclude that a large fraction of non-recovered fracturing fluid resides in the fractures below the horizontal well.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it