Protocol for sand control screen design of production wells for clayey silt hydrate reservoirs: A case study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The process of extracting natural gas from gas hydrate‐bearing sediments (GHBS) may yield significant sand influx due to the metastable nature of GHBS. Selecting appropriate sand control media is vital to addressing the challenges caused by excessive sand production. This study proposes a protocol called holding coarse expelling fine particles ( HCEFP ) for sand control design. The protocol aims to provide a new optimization method for screen mesh size selection for clayey silt hydrate reservoirs. Detailed optimizing procedures of proper candidate screen mesh sizes in hydrate exploitation well in clayey silt hydrate reservoirs are depicted based on the HCEFP . Then, the site W18, which is located in the Shenhu area of the northern South China Sea, is taken as an example to illustrate the optimization procedure for screen mesh size selection. The results reveal that complete solid retention via a standalone screen is rarely beneficial as high clay contents can adversely affect wellbore productivity due to excessive plugging. Screen aperture size selection for clayey silt hydrate wells should strike a balance between retaining coarser particles and avoiding screen blockage by the relatively fine particles. Furthermore, longitudinal heterogeneity of the PSDs also increases the difficulties associated with sand control design. Multistage sand control optimization is necessary in hydrate production wells. For Site W18, we recommend that the entire production interval can be divided into two subintervals for multistage sand control operations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it