A Solution to Sand Production from Natural Gas Hydrate Deposits with Radial Wells: Combined Gravel Packing and Sand Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand production is one of the main problems restricting the safe, efficient and sustainable exploitation of marine natural gas hydrate. To explore the sand-control effects of gravel packing, experiments that simulate hydrate extraction in the water-rich environment were conducted with designed hydrate synthesis and exploitation devices. Three sand control completion methods, including 120 mesh sand screen, 400 mesh sand screen, 120 mesh sand screen combined with gravel packing, are adopted. Sand and gas production rates were compared under different well types and sand control completion methods. Results show that the gas production modes of radial wells and vertical wells are almost the same at the same time due to the small experimental scale and high permeability. The sand production of the vertical well with gravel packing combined with a sand-control screen is 50% lower than that of the vertical well with sand-control screens only. Radial well with gravel packing combined with sand-control screens produced 87% less sand than screen mesh alone. The cumulative gas production and recovery rates of a radial well with the composite sand control method are better than those without gravel packing in the same development time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".