MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058909492 · doi:10.2118/2004-155

In-Situ Stress Magnitudes in the Alberta Basin-Regional Coverage for Petroleum Engineers

2004· article· en· W2058909492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. S. Bell, Stefan Bachu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Geological Survey
KeywordsPetroleumGeologyStructural basinIn situStress (linguistics)Petroleum explorationPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyGeographyPaleontologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Knowledge of the stress regime is important for reservoir engineering. This paper presents stress magnitudes in Alberta and NE British Columbia at a regional scale. Overburden stresses (SV) and smaller horizontal principal stresses (SHmin) are mapped at the tops of the Viking Formation, Banff Formation and Wabamun Group, and at the base of the Cretaceous section. SV values are based on integration of more than 100 density logs. SHmin estimates are derived from microfracs, mini-fracs, leak-off tests and hydraulic fracture data from several hundred wells. Averaging techniques are used to achieve compatibility between SHmin data sources. The maps display regional southwestward increases in stress magnitudes that relate to depth of present and past burial. They also portray unanticipated local variations suggestive of low stress lineaments that may be sites of enhanced reservoir permeability. Although reconnaissance in nature, the results will be of value to petroleum engineers engaged in borehole stability prognoses, reservoir development and subsurface gas injection. Such information has not been available previously on a regional scale. Introduction Over the past few years, rock mechanics has been invoked increasingly in drilling prognoses and in engineering programs related to the recovery of hydrocarbons. Predicting and assessing the physical behaviour of subsurface rocks helps achieve significant savings in drilling and production costs, as well as enhancing reservoir performance. In order to apply rock mechanical analyses, it is necessary to specify the mechanical properties of the rocks and the physical conditions that confine them. The major confining force is subsurface stress; the lateral and vertical pressures applied to buried rocks. Predicting the conditions under which rocks will fail during drilling or during fluid injection requires principal stress magnitudes (Fjaer et al., 1992; Stjern et al., 2003). All other factors being equal, in situ stresses can control permeability (Brighenti, 1989; Enever et al., 1994; Sparks et al., 1995), so explorationists, as well production personnel, have an interest in their magnitudes. In the Alberta Basin of western Canada there are a limited number of direct stress magnitude measurements and a plethora of data from which estimates can be derived. Stress Magnitude Measurement and Estimation The state of stress at a point in the subsurface can be fully defined by the orientations and magnitudes of three orthogonal principal stresses: σ1, σ2, σ3. Since, by definition, principal stresses intercept free surfaces at right angles, and the Alberta Basin has a nearly flat topographic surface, it is reasonable to infer that one principal stress will be vertical (SV) and the other two will be horizontal (SHmin, SHmax). The magnitude of the vertical stress, SV, at depth is equal to the pressure exerted by the overlying rocks. Continuous values for specific sites were obtained by integrating density logs. Average densities of the uppermost unlogged intervals, and of any obviously erroneously recorded sections, were estimated from linear extrapolations of adjacent intervals (Fig. 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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207