MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047182819 · doi:10.2118/167676-ms

A New Geomechanical Model Explaining Source Mechanisms of Events Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale

2014· article· en· W2047182819 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismGeologyHydraulic fracturingSlippageShearing (physics)Induced seismicitySlip (aerodynamics)BedShear (geology)Geotechnical engineeringSeismologyPetrologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimization of stimulation is key to successful development of unconventional reservoirs. Microseismic monitoring is the most powerful tool to help us understand where and what is happening during and after the stimulation. Yet very little is understood about the relationship between microseismicity and hydraulic fractures: some believe microseismic events are part of the hydraulic fractures, some believe they are resulting from stress changes and fluid leak-off. Microseismic datasets with accurate event locations complemented with source mechanisms lead us to a new level of understanding of the interaction between hydraulic fracturing and seismic response. There are at least four geomechanical models to explain observed failure mechanisms and the opening (or closing) of hydraulic fractures (seismic tensile opening, leak-off cloud of seismicity around the hydraulic fracture, shearing between aseismic tensile opening and horizontal fractures shearing on vertical planes). Unfortunately none of these models is consistent with observations presented in this study. Hence we developed a new geomechanical model of bedding plane slippage and vertical shearing induced by hydraulic fractures in shale reservoirs. We present a case study including detailed source mechanism inversion for a microseismic dataset from hydraulic fracturing of a shale gas play in the North America. We observe source mechanisms dominated by shear failure with dip-slip and strike-slip sense of motion. The dip-slip mechanisms are prevailingly oriented with shear planes along the maximum horizontal stress. This can be explained as slippage on beddings planes caused by aseismic opening of hydraulic fractures. The strike-slip mechanism show small but real components of non-shear deformation. This can be also explained as slippage on vertical plane perpendicular to maximum horizontal stress with slight opening as these events are direct part of the hydraulic fracture. This model explains large energy difference between seismic and hydraulic energy, and prevailing orientation of the shear planes of the induced microseismic events. In addition, the bedding planes are weak planes in the shale formation likely to fail. The model can better constrain fundamental parameters of induced hydraulic fractures and describe hydraulic fractures and their interaction with the shale plays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.193 · 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