Wellbore Fracture Mode and Fracture Pressure Drilled in Depleted Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drilling fluid loss in depleted reservoir has been an import issue faced by further tapping the potential of old oil fields. Accurate evaluation of the fracture pressure is the foundation to avoid mud loss. Traditional views suggest that tensile failure is the only fracture mode and the fracture pressure should be determined by a tensile failure criterion, which are not suitable for wells drilled in the depleted reservoir. In this paper, the analysis focuses on the fracture mode and fracture pressure in depleted reservoir, and case studies show that three fracture modes may first occur, and the fracture mode will be changed with reservoir depletion which highly depends on reservoir depletion degree, well azimuth and deviation angle, and the in situ stress state; different failure criteria at different stages of reservoir depletion should be selected to accurately evaluate the fracture pressure. For the vertical well, fracture pressure is no longer a single linear reduction with reservoir depletion; instead, a three-step and two-step reduction may appear, and for the directional well, the fracture pressure is not always decreased; the other patterns such as increase and first increase then decrease may also appear for the wells drilled in reverse and strike fault stress regimes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".