MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583764990 · doi:10.2118/0916-0114-jpt

Chemical Analysis of Flowback Water and Downhole Gas-Shale Samples

2016· article· en· W2583764990 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduced waterHydraulic fracturingShale gasOil shaleEnvironmental scienceUnconventional oilPetroleum engineeringSalinityGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 175925, “Chemical Analysis of Flowback Water and Downhole Gas-Shale Samples,” by Ashkan Zolfaghari, SPE, Yingzhe Tang, Jordan Holyk, Mojtaba Binazadeh, and Hassan Dehghanpour, SPE, University of Alberta, and Doug Bearinger, SPE, Nexen Energy, prepared for the 2015 SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 20–22 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Recently, flowback chemical analysis has been considered to be a complementary approach for evaluating fracturing operations and characterizing reservoir properties. Understanding the source of flowback salts and the mechanisms controlling the water chemistry is essential but also challenging because of the complexity of water/shale interactions. In this study, samples of flowback water and downhole shales are analyzed to investigate the mechanisms controlling the chemistry of flowback water. Introduction Field data show that chemistry of flowback water is substantially different from that of the injected water. For instance, in the Horn River Basin (HRB), slick water (with salinity levels similar to those of fresh water) is injected into the reservoir to create fractures, while the recovered flowback water is highly saline (40,000–70,000 ppm). Analysis of flowback data from the HRB wells indicates that the shape of the salt-concentration profiles is related to the fracture-network complexity. Knowledge of flowback-water composition is also required for water environmental assessment and selection of appropriate remediation strategies. Although flowback chemical analysis has been used widely to assess fracturing operations, the source of the ions in the flowback water is still a matter of debate. This study analyzes the flowback water and the shale samples to investigate the source of the ions and factors controlling flowback-water chemistry. Intact flowback- water samples are digested in acid to dissolve the precipitated salts and possible colloidal particles. A comparative analysis of the intact and acid- digested flowback-water samples is performed for better understanding of the mechanisms affecting flowback- water chemistry. The intact flowback-water samples are evaporated, and the remaining salts are investigated with X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy with energy- dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDXS). Furthermore, a sequential-ion-extraction method is developed to identify the loosely, moderately, and strongly attached ions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it