Sichuan Basin Longmaxi Shale Gas Stimulation and Completion Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The shale gas buzz in China continued in 2012. The Longmaxi Silurian age formation is one of three main target marine shales in China, the others being the Cambrian age Qiongzhusi and Niutitang. The Longmaxi serves as the more likely completion target for attempting to reach the production goals set forth by the government and state owned enterprises (SOEs). The Longmaxi is an interbedded mudstone/siltstone formation with an organic-rich carbonaceous interval at its base. It experienced widespread deposition and is predominantly found in what is currently known as the Sichuan basin in Sichuan province and the Chongqing municipality, with some evidence of its occurrence farther south and east into Guizhou and Hunan provinces. The lower organic-rich interval is the target for completion as it serves to store more hydrocarbon, which also lends itself to effective hydraulic fracture stimulation and flow capacity enhancement. This paper is a case study of one Longmaxi horizontal well and the efforts that were made to benchmark the formation deliverability from a horizontal wellbore with multiple stages of completion. An analog formation was identified from the vertical pilot well logs to guide the stimulation design. A diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) was performed and analyzed, as well as some stimulation-related core testing being completed to further refine the proposed hydraulic fracture treatment. A summary of the treatments are presented, followed by conclusions and paths forward for further efforts with completing the Longmaxi. A previous paper (Lv et al. 2012) cited completion of the first Cambrian age Qiongzhusi horizontal completion. This paper picks up from there, further detailing the shale gas development that is likely to be a major contributor to China's evolving energy mix.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".