Drilling grade barite: : the global outlook
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
In contrast, the US uses over 95% of its barite output for the oil drilling industry, highlighting a general correlation between rig activity and barite consumption, though this ratio has been affected over the past decade due to increased horizontal drilling, which in the US currently accounts for 70% of compared with only 15% in 2004 ( Figure 3 ). It appears that increased drilling of horizontal holes per rig platform has resulted in higher consumption of barite per rig. In terms of drilling location, the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) is the largest consumer of drilling-grade barite in the world, and for a number of years this was dominated by imports of Chinese lump barite to grinding mills in various coastal locations. Indian barite supply has risen and is now believed to account for nearly one quarter of imports to the GoM. The American Petroleum Institute (API) introduced a new barite grade (SG 4.1) in August 2010, in addition to the long-standing 4.2 specification. The intention was not to replace the 4.2 grade, but to provide the end-user with choice as to which material to use. This change was driven in part by a shortage of SG 4.2 barite, especially from mines in Nevada, which is the US's primary domestic barite producing region. Drilling-grade barite is specified by the API and must meet certain SG, chemical and sizing requirements ( Table 1 ).
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) | 0.000 | 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