MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979335407 · doi:10.33915/etd.6405

Understanding the Impact of Stimulation Treatment on Gas Production from a Horizontally Drilled Marcellus Shale Well

2018· dissertation· en· W2979335407 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Dean Carl Perrella

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleHydraulic fracturingPetroleum engineeringWest virginiaGeologyUnconventional oilMining engineeringDrillCompletion (oil and gas wells)BoreholeEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringArchaeologyGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Marcellus shale is one of the largest unconventional gas shale plays in the United States. It underlies much of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York and even extends under Lake Erie and into Canada. The most effective methods to produce from this play is to drill horizontally into the shale formation and use hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing creates pathways for the hydrocarbon to flow from the shale into the wellbore. These lateral sections of the well are typically completed from toe to heel over a number of stages using a plug and perforate method.;This research focuses on a Marcellus shale well drilled in Morgantown, West Virginia. The well was completed using five different fracture designs over a total of 28 stages throughout the lateral. This well served as more of a learning experience than a typical horizontal well. A flow scanner was also run through the well after hydraulic fracturing to discover more information that is typically not acquired in most wells. All data for this well was provided by the Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory (MSEEL) research group. The MSEEL participants were Northeastern Natural Energy, Department of Energy, West Virginia University, Ohio State University, and others who reviewed all the collected information. The goal of research group was to improve the understanding the shale characteristics in this region in order to be more efficient in the completion of other wells in this location.;A neural network model was used to examine the efficiency and performance of different completion methods and their impact on gas production. Several input parameters such as plug depth, total shots, natural fractures, measured slurry, measured clean fluid, measured proppant, pump time and stage length were used to predict gas flowrate. Several combinations of training, validation, and testing sets were employed with different number of hidden layer neurons and the best combination was determined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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