Effect of proppant distribution in hydraulic fractures on coalbed methane extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracturing with proppants is often used to improve the permeability of coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir. The fracture is easy to close under the closure stress and the proppant distribution in fractures greatly influences the extraction efficiency of CBM. The past research mainly considered the impact of fracturing damage on the coalbed methane extraction but rarely investigated the influence of the proppant distribution forms on CBM extraction. Therefore, based on the theory of dual-porous media, this paper establishes a theoretical model of CBM extraction with different proppant distribution forms, which considers the proppant compaction, embedment, and fracture aperture change. The model is implemented numerically and is validated against field results of CBM production. The research results show that the extraction efficiency of CBM from high to low is the pulse proppant injection, continuous proppant injection, no proppant injection, no fracturing. The continuous proppant injection should ensure that the proppant placement rate is more than 60 %. The CBM extraction efficiency is the highest when the proppant column length is 0.2 m–0.3 m and the void area length is 0.5 m. The research results provide a theoretical basis for improving the extraction efficiency of coalbed methane using fracturing with sand injection.
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 | 0.000 | 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".