A Case Study of Energy Storage Stimulation for Ultra-Low Permeability Oil Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Tight oil reservoir has the characteristic of low porosity (average of 8%), ultra-low permeability (average of 0.1 mD), low abundance and high clay content. The conventional fracturing techniques in exploration area was not successful in some cases, a novel series of horizontal well energy-storage fracturing techniques is proposed to improve the conventional fracturing technique, which based on increasing modified volume and replenishing formation energy. This technology involves in spacing optimization along the horizontal well section, optimization of fracturing fluid parameter, and forming complex network cracks. Afterwards, well shut-in can store energy and contribute to oil/water replacement. A total of 6 horizontal wells with 73 sections were tested in the field with successfully oil testing up to 95% after the techniques, which produces a good industrial oil flow. Furthermore, the single-well production can approach 8-10 times higher than that from the straight wells and 2-3 times higher than that from other horizontal wells in the same well block. The energy-storage fracturing technique provides a technical support for prospection and development of tight oil reservoir.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".