Propagation of In Situ Horizontal Fractures in Shale Due to Steam Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermal recovery processes, such as cyclic steam stimulation and steam assisted gravity drainage, involve the injection of large volumes of steam into oil sand formations. Dilatation of oil sand formations due to steam injection induces stresses and deformations in the shale overburden. Natural horizontal fissures or extensive fractures with no tensile and cohesive strength are commonly found in the shale formation. New fractures will be initiated at these in situ horizontal fracture tips if the stresses and deformation induced by the steam injection are excessive. Reactivation and propagation of these in situ fractures in the shale formation could not only cause casing impairment problems, but could also cause an environmental hazard. This paper presents an analytical model to investigate the propensity for fracture propagation in shale due to steam injection under tensile (mode I) and shear (model II) fracturing. Practical numerical examples are presented along with a risk assessment and implications. Introduction Heavy oil and bitumen are major energy resources in Canada, and have become a major focus for the oil and gas industry. The heavy oil deposits of Canada contain 30% of the world's recoverable oil(1). The challenge in developing this resource is the difficulty in recovering these highly viscous substances. Steam stimulation is one of the viable thermal recovery methods to extract bitumen from the oil sand ores buried in deep overburden. In this steam-based recovery method, large volumes of steam at high temperatures and pressures (300 °C and 10 MPa) are injected into the oil sand formation at depths of 450 - 500 m through wells in rows(2, 3). Steam injection produces stress and thermal dilatation of oil sand. Because oil sands are dense uncemented sands, the resulting deformation induced during the recovery processes could be excessive and detrimental to surface and subsurface facilities(4). Surface heave of up to 20 cm has been recorded(5). Overlying the oil sand formation are low-permeability clay shales forming an impermeable barrier against the migration of fluid. Natural horizontal fissures or fractures are commonly found in these shale formations(6, 7). These fractures have been formed or been subjected to a large shearing process during glaciation. Therefore, there is no tensile strength or small residual strength remaining along these fractures. One of the geomechanical-related problems is the question of whether these pre-existing fractures will propagate under steam injection. Intercepting these fractures with subsurface well casings could lead to casing impairment or rupture (see Figure 1). The main objective of the present paper is to evaluate the potential of initiation and propagation of in situ fractures in shales induced by cyclic steam stimulation in an oil sand reservoir using a simple analytical model(8). This model analytically considers the stress intensity factors at a crack parallel to the free surface of a half-plane under the action of a centre of dilatation. It is proposed that the introduction of steam in the oil sand formation can be modelled by introducing a centre of dilatation (dipole) in a two-dimensional homogenous isotropic elastic half-plane (see Figure 1).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".