MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2134181948 · doi:10.15530/urtec-2014-1922814

Using Microseismicity to Understand Subsurface Fracture Systems and to Optimize Completions: Eagle Ford Shale, TX

2014· article· en· W2134181948 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Detring, Michael Grealy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleEagleGeologyPetroleum engineeringShale gasMining engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Existing natural fractures often have a significant impact on both stimulatio n and production of oil and gas wells . Effective exploitation of unconventional reservoirs requires the understanding of the loca l tectonic history and the present day stress regime. Signal strength, high quality reflection seismic, microseismic imag ing, and moderate structural complexity of the liquids-rich gas and tight oil Eagle Ford shale makes it an ideal place to study hydrau lic fracturing in tight rocks. Microseismic monitoring results showed clear structural trends relating to reactiv ation of existing faults and fractures, and rock failure mechanisms determined through source mechanism inversion of events. These results provided critical information to the operator for optimizing the hydraulic fracture design. Microseismic data collected using a surface array allowed the full geometry of the r esult to be viewed with no event location bias. The geometry of the microseismicity trends related to fracturing develo ped during the stimulation treatment was representative of the true geometry of the structure. The large aperture and wide azimuth of the monitoring array facilitated the determination of source mechanisms from every event detected , which provided full coverage of the focal sphere of each source mechanism. The events identified two different source mechanisms , indicating a different failure mechanism for fractures than for reactivated faults. Microseismicity with a NE-SW orientation are interpreted to be related to either induce d or reactivated faults or fractures. Microseismicity also formed trends that are contiguous across more than one wellbore in an ENE-WSW direction. These trends are interpreted to have form ed as a result of fault reactivation. Source mechanisms from fracturing parallel to SHmax have failure planes that strike NE-SW with normal dip-slip failure on steeply-dipping planes . Those from fault reactivation have strike-slip failure on ENE-WSW striking failure planes. The NE- SW-striking, dip-slip fractures are parallel to extensional Gulf of Mexico growth faulting and the ENE-WSW-striking, strike-slip faults are at an angle of approximately 25 o to the dominant fracturing trends. Microseismicity trends associated with faults are used to project where fau lts will intersect adjacent wells. Identification of these faults in the reservoir via microseismic mapping allow operators to modify their treatment parameters and stage spacing in order to avoid geologic hazards. The operator combines the treatment p ump parameters for the wells with the additional structural understanding gained from the analysis of fracture tren ds and source mechanisms to identify zones that should be avoided in subsequent treatments. In addition, the mapped microseismicity provides critical information that was used to modify well spacing for subsequent wells, thereby optimizing the com pletion plan and dramatically cutting costs.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→