Fracture Shadowing: A Direct Method for Determination of the Reach and Propagation Pattern of Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports the results of field measurements carried out in four horizontal wells all of which were fractured in the course of this investigation, with a total of 68 fractures. The engineering basis for these measurements was detection of fracture shadowing (created by a combination of stress and pressure shadowing) created by the extending fractures. The results are used to develop a field-based engineering foundation for determination of fracture orientation and extent, spacing between wells, and the optimum number and spacing between fracture stages. Two of the four wells served as observation wells throughout the project while the other two were actively being fractured. Pressure gages were installed in each of the two observation wells. Our findings show that we were able to detect fracture shadows generated by every stage of active fracturing. All the created fractures had a consistent northeast-southwest orientation, many were asymmetrical with respect to the wellbore, their propagation pattern was off-balance, and none of them intersected any of the many other existing fractures within the experiment domain. Some of the fractures had intersected and extended beyond the adjacent cased horizontal holes. The results also provided working approximations of the created fracture lengths. A fortuitous coincidence of events allowed us to detect fractures created during the measurement period from another nearby well more than 1000 ft away. The fact that through fracture shadowing we were able to detect fractures so far away is quite remarkable. Furthermore, the general fracture growth pattern was consistent with the findings from the other four wells. The major advantage of the proposed approach is simplicity of operations, ease of analysis, and the high quality of results.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it