Production-Increase Potential Evaluations after Refracturing Low-Shale-Oil-Producing Wells via Machine-Learning-Driven Multisource Data Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide As shale reservoir development progresses, the share of low-producing horizontal wells grows, and the need for repeated-fracturing technology becomes more essential. Accurately evaluating the production potential is crucial for determining the efficacy of refracturing. This work proposes a novel method for assessing the repeated-fracturing potential of low-producing horizontal wells that combines the fine screening of important controlling parameters with an optimized XGBoost algorithm ( R 2 = 0.904 on test data). A multisource data set of 149 wells and 27 geological-engineering parameters is generated. Through a comparison of seven machine learning algorithms, the XGBoost algorithm outperformed the others in prediction performance. Six critical control parameters were found using feature priority ranking and variance inflation factor analysis: repeated-fracturing fluid injection volume and injection intensity, single-well-controlled geological reserves, fluid volume, length of the drilled oil-bearing formation, and number of repeated fracturing stages. Using the optimized XGBoost model, the potential of 29 additional candidate wells was assessed. The results indicate that two wells, X238-77 and Y3, exhibit considerable production increases and thus should be prioritized for repeat fracturing and reforming. Specific development plans for the remaining 27 wells are required according to their potential index rankings. This research provides a theoretical foundation and technical support for optimizing refracturing decisions, which is conducive to the efficient development of shale oil.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".