Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been 13 major inquiries completed during the past few years that have addressed the issue of hydraulic fracture stimulation (fraccing) in Australia. There are two inquiries due to report before mid-2016; namely in SA (Natural Resources Committee, Parliament of South Australia, 2015), and the Senate Inquiry (Parliament of Australia, 2015). These inquiries are in addition to many others conducted in overseas jurisdictions including various states of the US, Canada, and in countries in the European Union, including the UK. Concerns are usually concluded around ensuring there is a proper regulatory environment to confirm that the use of fraccing is conducted using international best practices, and the risk to the environment is minimised. In each and every responsible inquiry the conclusion has been that there is no scientific or public policy reason that would justifiably prevent the use of fraccing as a pre-well completion stimulation technique. This paper attempts to synthesise basic data about fraccing—why the ability to fracture stimulate wells is no longer a luxury but a necessity in deep oil and gas production—to convey factual information and summarise the results of inquiries in Australia to date. Comparisons between hydraulic fracture stimulation operations and results in the US and Australia are intended to provide comfort that some of the potentially more intense (massive) hydraulic fracture stimulation operations routinely conducted in the US (and Canada) on an individual well basis are not contemplated in the immediate future in Australia. The scale of North American fraccing activities may bear little resemblance to what may be proposed or occur in Australia owing to fundamental differences in geology, basin stress regimes, infrastructure, and cost and logistics, among other factors. The author’s conclusion is that fraccing in Australia can and will be carried out in a sphere of safety and regulation that many other countries are likely to aspire to copy. It would, however, be foolish to suggest hydraulic fracturing operations are not without some risk, as with many industrial and other daily activities, but the risks can be managed or mitigated with sound engineering and scientific practices. This is irrespective of the messages by opponents of hydraulic fracture stimulation in oil and gas wells. The modern practice of fraccing has been used now for more than 65 years, albeit with increasing scale commensurate with technological advances, which has caught the public’s imagination. Indeed, the results of inquiries have given no credence to demonising the technology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.418 | 0.194 |
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".