Assessing The Probability Of Fluid Migration Caused By Hydraulic Fracturing; And Investigating Flow And Transport In Porous Media Using Mri
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract oil and natural gas from low permeability formations. The potential of fluids migrating from depth through adjacent wellbores and through the production wellbore was investigated using statistical modeling and predic-tive classifiers. The probability of a hydraulic fracturing well becoming hydraulically connected to an adjacent well in the Marcellus shale of New York was determined to be between 0.00% and 3.45% at the time of the study. This means that the chance of an in-duced fracture from hydraulic fracturing intersecting an existing well is highly dependent on the area of increased permeability caused by fracturing. The chance of intersecting an existing well does not mean that fluid will flow upwards; for upward migration to occur, a pathway must exist and a pressure gradient is required to drive flow, with the exception of gas flow caused by buoyancy. Predictive classifiers were employed on a dataset of wells in Alberta Canada to identify well characteristics most associated to fluid migration along the production well. The models, specifically a random forest, were able to identify pathways better than random guessing with 78% of wells in the data set identified cor-rectly.\nMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to visualize and quantify contami-nant transport in a soil column using a full body scanner. T1 quantification was used to determine the concentration of a contaminant surrogate in the form of Magnevist, an MRI contrast agent. Imaging showed a strong impact from density driven convection when the density difference between the two fluids was small (0.3%). MRI also identified a buildup of contrast agent concentration at the interface between a low permeability ground silica and higher permeability AFS 50-70 testing sand when density driven con-vection was eliminated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".