Invasion and Movement of Fluids in Shale Formations and Wellbore Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The invasion and movement of drilling fluids through shale formations can significantly contribute to wellbore instability. By combining the experimental results with the microstructural studies of core samples, we will examine the invasion and movement of fluids in shale formations near wellbore, including the mechanisms, rates, affecting factors, and impact on shale stability. Pre-test core studies provided insight into rock composition, structure, fracture distribution, water activity, and pore-fluid composition. Pore-fluid transmission tests were conducted on preserved shale cores from four different formations, each with a different water activity measurement. Thin section analyses of post-test cores were conducted to evaluate shale-fluid interactions and the impact of fluid invasion and movement on shale stability. Test results show clear evidence of a reverse osmosis process out of the shale. The reverse osmosis increased when the difference between the water activity of the shale's pore fluid and the drilling fluid also increased. A water activity difference of >0.07, and the resulting pore-pressure drop (caused by the reverse osmosis), can subdue the impact of fluid invasion from drilling fluid to formation and led to a net decrease in downstream pressure. Reverse osmosis could cause downstream pressure below the initial value in a few minutes. A pore-pressure drop due to reverse osmosis may improve the stability of wellbore due to an increase in effective drilling fluid support. However, tests show that strong reverse osmosis could cause fracturing from over-dehydration of the shale. Tests also indicate that invasion along fractures increases pore pressure, even with a potential for strong reverse osmosis. Adjusting the water activity of drilling fluids to closely match that of the shale formations while minimizing fluid invasion along fractures and other fluid channels reduces wellbore instability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".