MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912448853 · doi:10.1115/1.4042735

Feasibility Analysis and Optimal Design of Acidizing of Coalbed Methane Wells

2019· article· en· W2912448853 on OpenAlexaff
Zixi Guo, Yiyu Chen, Shanshan Yao, Qiushi Zhang, Yongbing Liu, Fanhua Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersState Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation
KeywordsCoalbed methanePetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCoalCoal miningWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plugging is a prominent reason for production reduction in coalbed methane (CBM) wells. In order to solve this problem, authors conducted the feasibility analysis and optimal design of acidizing of CBM wells to remove the plugging in Hancheng block (H block) China. First, X-ray diffraction analysis shows that the plugging contains acid-soluble minerals and the field case indicates that acidizing effect is positively correlated with the content of acid-soluble minerals. Inspired by this, authors analyze determining factors of the content of acid-soluble minerals. Well logging parameters (DEN, AC, GR) are selected to establish a neural network model to predict the content of acid-soluble minerals. Furthermore, a feasibility criterion of acidizing of CBM wells is proposed. Then, a forward model and an inversion algorithm are proposed to diagnose the plugging. The multisolution problem of parameters inversion is solved by the Gauss–Marquardt (G-M) algorithm based on the stochastic initial value and maximum probability. Combining this method with the current numerical model of acidizing, authors present an optimal design in order to optimize the volume and injection rate of the acid. Meanwhile, by experimental study, authors propose a new acid formulation. Finally, results have been applied in the field to confirm the feasibility of the acidizing. It turns out that acidizing is an effective stimulation technology for some specific CBM wells, and the feasibility analysis and the optimal design can improve the effect of acidizing of CBM wells.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207