Elastic Anisotropy in Bakken Formation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT: The first laboratory study describing elastic anisotropy of Bakken shale reservoir was reported almost three decades ago. Since then, several efforts have been made in this direction, with the most recent being in 2022 to characterize hydraulic fracture-driven interaction. Separately, a study reported the relationship between various anisotropic stiffness tensor components using published data. However, none of these studies address the variability observed between different formations, nor did they highlight static-dynamic inversion, crucial to 1D geomechanics modeling. This paper utilizes the data presented in the 2022 publication to advance current understanding of anisotropy for Bakken reservoir. First, we try to understand static mechanical property anisotropy observed in various formations. We also study stress-dependency of the observed anisotropy. We examine relationships between various anisotropic stiffness tensor components and reconcile with published data. Finally, we estimate Thomsen parameter for the formations studies and subsequently utilize that to build 1D geomechanics model for Bakken. Separately, we built another iteration of 1D geomechanics model using a different workflow. The results presented here improve our understanding of anisotropy in Bakken, as well as demonstrating two different ways to build 1D geomechanics model. 1. INTRODUCTION The Bakken and Three Forks formations cover a significant portion of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana in the United States; and Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada. Drilling activity since 2000 has been primarily focused on these two formations because of new advances in horizontal drilling technology. With these advances, the need for additional cores and data has enabled investigations into previous undrilled portions of the basin. Organic shales present in the Bakken and Three Forks formation, and other formations all over the world, are characterized by velocity anisotropy with lower velocity in the direction perpendicular to the lamination. Characterizing anisotropy is critical not only from the seismic attribute standpoint, but also for geomechanics modeling with application to frac design. While the seminal paper by Thomsen (1986) first mathematically described the observed anisotropy almost 40 years back, past decades have seen a number of publications aimed at characterizing anisotropy in Bakken formations via core-based measurement (Vernik and Nur, 1992; Guedez et al., 2018, and very recently, Merzoug et al., 2022). Guedez et al. (2018), for example, reviewed extensive literature data to establish relationship between different components of the anisotropic stiffness tensor. They were then applied to sonic data from a vertical well in the Bakken formation, in an effort to circumvent the uncertainty involved in using Stonely wave data (for C66 estimation). They then compared the predicted insitu horizontal stress using the relationship developed by them with that obtained using ANNIE and MANNIE models. Merzoug et al., 2022 (and Chellal et al., 2022), on the other hand, used core-based measurements targeted on Bakken and Three Forks formation to model insitu horizontal stress aimed at understanding fracture driven interaction.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».