MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2805429950 · doi:10.2118/190717-ms

Simulation Study for Scale Management During Shale Gas Production

2018· article· en· W2805429950 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Xu Wang, Eric Mackay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnergi Simulation
KeywordsOil shaleHydraulic fracturingPetroleum engineeringProduced waterGeomechanicsFracture (geology)GeologyEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas production involves pumping large volumes of water; as a consequence of this, produced water management is an important topic to address in order to sustainably produce shale gas. It has been well documented that only approximately 10-40% of the pumped fluids will be produced back to the surface, and that there will be increased concentrations of various ions in the flowback water during this process. This flowback water, with high total dissolved solids and high concentrations of certain ions, presents a significant risk of mineral scaling (Blauch, 2009). In general, it can be very challenging to identify the in situ formation water composition in shale reservoirs since samples of the formation water can be difficult to obtain. They may have been contaminated during the drilling process, reactions may have taken place due to fluid mixing between the injected fluid and the formation water, or simply they may not have been preserved appropriately (Pan, 2017). Some calculations of formation water compositions require to be preceded based on the observed compositional data; thereafter, the predicted formation water compositions are validated by comparison with the observed total dissolved solids (TDS) data. A two-phase 3D numerical flow model has been developed that includes a hydraulic fracture and is populated with shale reservoir properties. (This model assumes the hydraulic fracture is already established – i.e. the calculations include coupled flow and component transport, but the geomechanics are not considered). It is used to simulate fluid transport mechanisms within the shale system and to address the question – what causes the significant retention of fracture fluid in shale reservoirs. A series of simulations was performed to achieve a history match with observed flowback water data in a western Canadian basin (the Horn River Basin). A further two-phase 3D flow model was developed to examine the scaling tendency due to the evolving produced brine composition over the lifetime of the well. It is based on the previously history matched model and includes the fracture fluid and formation water compositions to predict precipitation of minerals. Finally, scale inhibitor injection was simulated to examine the impact of inhibitor retention on well protection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→