Hydraulic fracturing considerations: Insights from analogue models, and its viability in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracking is being considered around the world as a potential method in the hydrocarbons extraction given the increase of production in USA and Canada during the last years with its implementation. The most criticized feature of the technique of fracking is the contamination of underground waters by fluids connected through the generated and/or pre-existing fractures. This work evaluates the viability of fracking in Colombian territory based in the study of the analogue models, considering the elastic properties of the reservoir rocks using gelatin, sand and clay that apply scaled pressure (lithostatic pressure to scale). The gelatin is used to simulate the reservoir zone, the clay will simulate one sail and the sand will simulate reservoir rocks of underground water. As a result seven different models were generated. There were simulated as 1) the anisotropy presence, 2) the rock sail presence, and 3) the injection groove of fluids in the pipeline. The completed models show that the required distance between the unconventional reservoir and underground waters to avoid contamination by fluids is ~200 m, also between the hydraulic fracturing point and the faults that connect with the shallows area is ~350 m, and it is suggested to study in detail the permeability of both: nearby faults and the rock sail. Two Colombian basins (Magdalena Midland Valley and Llanos) were taken as the main base to analyze the assessment of fracking according to the previously mentioned results, concluding that it is viable particularly in areas like Llanos Basin and with some precautions in similar zones to Magdalena Midland Valley Basin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".