MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898993188

Rising frac sand prices boost producer earnings in Q1 results

2017· article· en· W2898993188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)RevenueEarningsAgricultural economicsProfit (economics)BusinessAgricultural scienceEconomyEconomicsCommerceGeographyFinanceEnvironmental scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

US Silica running out, says CEO; Growth in Fairmount Santrol coarser sand; Northern White demand up says Smart Sand Frac sand producers reported surging sales and prices in the latest round of company results, driven by increased activity as well as a trend toward higher proppant densities. Over the first three months of 2017, US Silica reported sales of frac sand at 2.5m short tons, up 79% year-on-year, and an increase of 22% from the last quarter of 2016. Revenues from the company's proppant segment rose by 161% year-on-year, to $193m. The company's chief executive, Bryan Shinn, told investors that markets are expected to stay very tight. Most of the major sand suppliers, including US Silica, are running flat out today, Mr Shinn said. Demand is expected to continue growing faster than supply for the foreseeable future, and as such, we expect to continue pricing recovery and improving margins in our sand sales. Across the whole company, revenues rose 100% year-on-year, to $244.8m. The company reported a net profit of $2.5m in the first quarter, compared to a loss of $11.0m over the same period a year ago. Fairmount Santrol meanwhile reported raw frac sand sales volumes in the first quarter of 2017 at 1.9m s.tons. This is a rise of 36% year-on-year, and a 10% increase on the previous quarter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2080.052

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicEngineering and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207