MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003869214 · doi:10.1115/1.4028690

Numerical Simulation of Complex Fracture Network Development by Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Ultratight Formations

2014· article· en· W2003869214 on OpenAlexafffund
Hannes Hofmann, Tayfun Babadagli, Günter Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingFracture (geology)Petroleum engineeringGeologyOil shaleTight gasMicroseismFracture treatmentUnconventional oilTight oilComplex fractureGeotechnical engineeringSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creation of large complex fracture networks by hydraulic fracturing is imperative for enhanced oil recovery from tight sand or shale reservoirs, tight gas extraction, and hot-dry-rock (HDR) geothermal systems to improve the contact area to the rock matrix. Although conventional fracturing treatments may result in biwing fractures, there is evidence by microseismic mapping that fracture networks can develop in many unconventional reservoirs, especially when natural fracture systems are present and the differences between the principle stresses are low. However, not much insight is gained about fracture development as well as fluid and proppant transport in naturally fractured tight formations. In order to clarify the relationship between rock and treatment parameters, and resulting fracture properties, numerical simulations were performed using a commercial discrete fracture network (DFN) simulator. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis is presented to identify typical fracture network patterns resulting from massive water fracturing treatments in different geological conditions. It is shown how the treatment parameters influence the fracture development and what type of fracture patterns may result from different treatment designs. The focus of this study is on complex fracture network development in different natural fracture systems. Additionally, the applicability of the DFN simulator for modeling shale gas stimulation and HDR stimulation is critically discussed. The approach stated above gives an insight into the relationships between rock properties (specifically matrix properties and characteristics of natural fracture systems) and the properties of developed fracture networks. Various simulated scenarios show typical conditions under which different complex fracture patterns can develop and prescribe efficient treatment designs to generate these fracture systems. Hydraulic stimulation is essential for the production of oil, gas, or heat from ultratight formations like shales and basement rocks (mainly granite). If natural fracture systems are present, the fracturing process becomes more complex to simulate. Our simulations suggest that stress state, in situ fracture networks, and fluid type are the main parameters influencing hydraulic fracture network development. Major factors leading to more complex fracture networks are an extensive pre-existing natural fracture network, small fracture spacings, low differences between the principle stresses, well contained formations, high tensile strength, high Young’s modulus, low viscosity fracturing fluid, and large fluid volumes. The differences between 5 km deep granitic HDR and 2.5 km deep shale gas stimulations are the following: (1) the reservoir temperature in granites is higher, (2) the pressures and stresses in granites are higher, (3) surface treatment pressures in granites are higher, (4) the fluid leak-off in granites is less, and (5) the mechanical parameters tensile strength and Young’s modulus of granites are usually higher than those of shales.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations58
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207