Horn River Basin: A Study of the Behavior of Frac Barriers in a Thick Shale Package Using the Integration of Microseismic, Geomechanics and Log Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Horn River Group (HRG) shales are prime exploration targets. The shales form a 200m thick package of over-pressured, organic rich, siliceous mudrocks found at drilling depths between 2400–2700m. The gross thickness of the shale interval and the observed frac barriers within the shale package present a challenge for maximizing the stimulated rock volume when completing wells. Within Devon Canada, an exploration program was designed to evaluate reservoir complexity and heterogeneity, the ultimate goal being to optimize horizontal, vertical and lateral well placement while balancing recovery factor and capital costs. Core and log data from vertical wells were analyzed to target optimal horizontal drilling zones for hydraulic fracture initiation and ease of drilling. Geomechanical log analysis supports the observation made from microseismic data that frac height growth through the frac barriers in the shale package happens preferentially depending upon the direction from which the fracture was initiated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".