Detection of magnetic nanoparticles against proppant and shale reservoir rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the expansion in the production of shale oil and gas, there is a desire to obtain detailed information of the downhole environment resulting from hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Nanomagnetite (nMag) has been proposed as a suitable contrast agent for magnetic imaging. In order to determine its suitability, 15 nm oleic acid-stabilised magnetite nanoparticles were synthesised and the magnetic susceptibility was measured and compared against two types of proppant. Although frac sand is diamagnetic (−0.20 × 10−5 SI), ceramic proppant is paramagnetic (25.7 × 10−5 SI) due to the presence of Fe2O3. The quantity of the nanoparticles that would be required for differentiation against the background levels in the proppant pack was calculated to be 0.269 g/L for sand and 1.01 g/L for ceramic, which correlates to a minimum of 15,000 kg and 56,000 kg per well, respectively. In order to determine the contrast with the reservoir rock itself, the magnetic susceptibility was mapped for cores from two typical shale gas reservoirs (Harrison and Rackley, Arkansas), which show a general low level of paramagnetism (ca. 45 × 10−5 SI). However, regions are observed with higher susceptibility (>200 × 10−5 SI) necessitating the use of 242,000 kg nMag per well in order to provide contrast with the reservoir.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".