A comparative study of the anisotropic dynamic and static elastic moduli of unconventional reservoir shales: Implication for geomechanical investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We obtained the complete set of dynamic elastic stiffnesses for a suite of “shales” representative of unconventional reservoirs from simultaneously measured P- and S-wave speeds on single prisms specially machined from cores. Static linear compressibilities were concurrently obtained using strain gauges attached to the prism. Regardless of being from static or dynamic measurements, the pressure sensitivity varies strongly with the direction of measurement. Furthermore, the static and dynamic linear compressibilities measured parallel to the bedding are nearly the same whereas those perpendicular to the bedding can differ by as much as 100%. Compliant cracklike porosity, seen in scanning electron microscope images, controls the elastic properties measured perpendicular to the rock’s bedding plane and results in highly nonlinear pressure sensitivity. In contrast, those properties measured parallel to the bedding are nearly insensitive to stress. This anisotropy to the pressure dependency of the strains and moduli further complicates the study of the overall anisotropy of such rocks. This horizontal stress insensitivity has implications for the use of advanced sonic logging techniques for stress direction indication. Finally, we tested the validity of the practice of estimating the fracture pressure gradient (i.e., horizontal stress) using our observed elastic engineering moduli and found that ignoring anisotropy would lead to underestimates of the minimum stress by as much as 90%. Although one could ostensibly obtain better values or the minimum stress if the rock anisotropy is included, we would hope that these results will instead discourage this method of estimating horizontal stress in favor of more reliable techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".