Multidisciplinary Integration and Tools to Better Address the Utica Shale Stratigraphy, Rock Properties and Fraccability*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of horizontal and vertical wells in the Utica Shale of Quebec have shed new light on multidisciplinary approaches and tools for the evaluation of its stratigraphy, rock properties and ability to fracture. Two of the horizontal wells drilled are displayed in Figure 1. Method In horizontal wells, delineation of open fracture zones and faults has been achieved using gas chromatography. The combination of gas chromatography with image logs has demonstrated that wetter gas can be locally attributed to increased density of open fractures and not to a change in source rock maturity. These results led to fine-tuning the fracture design in such a way as to avoid areas of potential placement problems. Geomechanical modeling based on data from wells in the Saint Lawrence Lowlands in Quebec had predicted that an increase in pore pressure had the potential to change the stress regime from strike slip to thrusting, implying the possibility of limited height “pancake fractures” (Figure 2 from Brodylo et al. 2011). In one horizontal well, the close proximity of the borehole to a boundary between two rheologically different shale units was deemed susceptible to horizontal fracture propagation. The geomechanical model was correct as shown by some post fracture deformation of the 4” liner in the horizontal section caused by bed parallel shortening. As such, a borehole geometry that gently and gradually crosses stratigraphy should reduce the potential for casing deformation associated with horizontal fracture propagation. For various operational or economic reasons, a decision not to run wireline logs or not to monitor the stimulation with microseismic may be taken; this may have a substantial negative impact on our understanding of what happened during the hydraulic fracturing process. In one horizontal well in Quebec, the ease of placement in one particular fracture stage seemingly contradicted the petrophysical prediction. Log derived geomechanical properties of the Utica in the horizontal borehole indicated the presence of a less brittle facies where fracture initiation
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".