Study of the Influence of Shale Anisotropy Orientation on Directional Drilling Performance in Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of shale anisotropy orientation on shale drilling performance has been studied using a new laboratory procedure. This procedure includes drilling and testing three sets of shale samples in different orientations from a single rock sample. Shale samples of different types were collected from outcrops located at Conception Bay South (CBS) in Newfoundland, Canada. For predrilling tests, oriented physical and mechanical measurements on each type of shale were conducted on the same rocks that will be drilled later. For drilling tests, three sets of tests were conducted. Each set was in a different orientation, corresponding to those in the physical and mechanical measurements. Each set was conducted under the same drilling parameters of pressure, flow rate (FR), and weight on bit (WOB) using a fully instrumented laboratory scale drilling rig. Two different types of drill bits were used, including a 35 mm dual cutter PDC bit and a 25.4 mm diamond coring bit. The drilling data was analyzed by constructing relationships between drilling rate of penetration (ROP) versus orientation (i.e. 0°, 45°, or 90°). The analysis also included relationships between WOB and bit cutter Depth of Cut (DOC), Revolution Per Minute (RPM), and Torque (TRQ). All the above relations were evaluated as a function of shale bedding orientation. This evaluation can assist in understanding the influence of shale anisotropy on oriented drilling. Details of the conducted tests and results are reported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".