New Insight into Enhancing Organic-Rich Shale Gas Recovery: Shut-in Performance Increased through Oxidative Fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidizing stimulation of organic-rich shale reservoirs, as a supplement of hydraulic fracturing, was proposed to enhance shale gas recovery. Previous publications revealed that the interaction between organic-rich shale and oxidative fluids causes the components’ dissolution, which induces lots of pores and microfractures, resulting in rock microfracturing without confined pressure and associated increments of the matrix permeability, and improving unpropped fracture conductivity. However, the enhancement of shale gas recovery with oxidative fluids still lacks an implementation clue targeted for specific engineering problems. In recent years, water–rock interaction inducing microfractures indicates a positive effect of retained fracturing fluid on the stimulation after the fracturing operation, which sheds light in the enhancement of shale gas production by shut-in. The objectives of this study are to provide a new perspective whereby the shut-in performance to enhance shale gas recovery could be increased by the injection of oxidative fluids into the formation during the fracturing operation. Firstly, the mechanisms of shut-in performance increased by oxidative dissolution, which illustrate the increment of the density of fracture networks, the improvement of fracture network conductivity, and the promotion of gas desorption and diffusivity, are demonstrated. Then, the feasibility of using oxidative fluids to increase shut-in performance, which follows the geological and engineering characteristics of organic-rich shale reservoirs, is evaluated. Finally, according to the analysis of production performance for two typical types of shale gas wells, in which one is a low gas production and a high fracturing fluid recovery (LGP-HFR) and the other is a high gas production and a low fracturing fluid recovery (HGP-LFR), a shut-in strategy with oxidative fluids to enhance shale gas recovery is developed. This indicates that the injection of oxidative fluids during the fracturing operation may become a promising and cost-effective approach to enhance shale gas recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".