Variations and model of the rheological parameters of low damage BCG − CO<sub>2</sub> fracturing fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A BCG − CO2 fracturing fluid composed of a new thickener and CO2 causes low amounts of formation damage, and it can be used to stimulate low‐permeability gas reservoirs with water sensitivity. However, at present the rheological properties of this foam fracturing fluid are unclear, which has limited its field application to some degree. The main purpose of this study was to ascertain the rheological parameters and a model of the BCG − CO2 fracturing fluid. The rheological properties of the BCG − CO2 fracturing fluid were evaluated by using a foam rheological test system. The unfoamed condition test results showed that when the shear rate was lower than 1000 s−1, the effective viscosity exhibited a rapid decreasing trend. The effective viscosity of the BCG − CO2 fracturing fluid was 4 to 26 mPa · s under foamed conditions. The comparison results showed that the viscosity of the BCG − CO2 foam was suitable as a low damage fracturing fluid. The measured data were fitted using the H‐B and power law models in this study. The power law model, by contrast, was fit for describing the relationship between shear rate and shear stress. The foamed condition rheological index n′ first decreased and then increased with increasing foam quality, and the rheological coefficient k′ first increased and then decreased with increasing foam quality. For the different foam qualities, the rheological index n′ first increased and then decreased with increasing temperature. The rheological coefficient k′ showed a decreasing trend with increasing temperature. When an exponential function, in which the foam quality and temperature were independent, was used for fitting, it was not accurate in predicting the rheological properties. The fitting results based on a quadratic polynomial surface model were better. The average calculation errors of the rheological parameters were all less than 3.32%. The findings of this study can help develop a better understanding of the heat transfer and flow coupling process in wellbore and fracture in fracturing treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".