MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971328295 · doi:10.2118/162814-ms

Understanding Induced Fracture Complexity in Different Geological Settings Using DFIT Net Fracture Pressure

2012· article· en· W1971328295 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Potocki

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyForeland basinTectonicsStructural basinTectonic subsidencePaleontologyTectonic phaseSedimentary basinSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A review of several hundred Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs) from vertical and horizontal wellbores in a variety of lithologies (tight sandstone, siltstone and shale) within a spectrum of geological settings (passive margin, foreland, and active strike-slip/thrust basins) was conducted to determine potential controls on stimulation complexity determined from the DFIT Net Fracture Pressure (NFP). Not surprisingly large differences in NFP complexity exist within this diverse data set and the variability is best explained by grouping the data according to the tectonic setting of the basin. Tectonic setting is interpreted as the first order control on NFP complexity since increasingly complex tectonic and burial histories elevate stresses and create tectonic fractures that promote increasingly complicated interactions between induced hydraulic fractures and intrinsic rock fractures. As a result, rocks in the Gulf Coast passive margin basin (Haynesville, Bossier) which have relatively simple burial and tectonic histories exhibit the lowest NFP complexities whereas rocks in strike-slip/thrust basins with high present day tectonic stress and abundant tectonic fabric have the largest complexity. Rocks in foreland basins (Montney, Horn River, Cretaceous Deep Basin sandstones) have NFP complexity that is generally variable between passive margin and strike-slip/thrust basins. Within any particular tectonic setting, NFP complexity is controlled by a complicated interplay between the natural fracture intensity, net horizontal stress (NHS) and wellbore geometry. Increasingly stiff and brittle rocks are commonly increasingly naturally fractured and this favours greater NFP complexity, and DFITs from vertical wellbores generally exhibit lower NFP complexity as fracture initiation and growth is simpler from vertical wells than from horizontal wells. Relations between NFP complexity and NHS (closure – pore pressure) are complicated by the degree to which tectonics has diminished and overprinted the pore pressure control on closure stress. In the Gulf Coast passive margin setting (eg.Haynesville shale) pore pressure is the dominant control on closure stress and NFP complexity is increased where pore pressures are lower, possibly due to frac geometry changes associated changing stress profiles. In more tectonically complex settings (foreland and strike-slip/thrust basins) pore pressure exerts less influence on closure while tectonic stresses increasingly influence regional NFP complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.151 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Canadian Unconventional Resources ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207