MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320071149 · doi:10.2118/174454-ms

Mini-Frac Analysis in Oilsands and their Associated Cap Rocks Using PTA Based Techniques

2015· article· en· W2320071149 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Closure (psychology)GeologyEngineeringMathematicsComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) requires mini-frac tests to be performed on thermal or polymer injection projects as part of the licensing process. Mini-fracture closure stress in the cap rocks is the key item used in determining the maximum operating pressure (MOP) for injection wells. The MOP has a significant impact on the economics of the project. This paper will establish a physics based interpretation method that covers all injection/fall-off mini-frac tests. In the field, mini-frac tests are typically performed with multiple injection/fall-off cycles (usually 5 to 7 cycles) on each zone. Multi cycle testing is unique to the oilsands and their associated cap rocks. Multiple zones are also tested in a well, in both pay intervals (typically McMurray sands) and cap rocks (Clearwater shales etc.). Each cycle is analyzed for closure events and hopefully a consistent stress is found for each zone. Industry currently faces a conundrum as there is no agreement among analysts as to how to interpret these tests. As a result, reports submitted to the AER follow different methodologies. This may partially explain the wide range of reported closure stresses within individual basins. This paper will show using field mini-frac data that traditional interpretation techniques can lead to ambiguities/incorrect interpretations. These issues can be overcome by using a pressure transient analysis (PTA) based interpretation approach. PTA has a long history of analyzing injection/fall-off and production/build-up tests where the rock fabric does not change during the test. The PTA interpretation methodology has remained remarkably consistent over the past 25 years. It can be summarized as follows: first identify flow regimes with a special kind of derivative plot, and second use flow regime specific specialized plots to calculate formation properties. This paper will show that PTA can now also handle dynamic fracturing (i.e. mini-fracturing) and all of its associated special cases; which include pressure dependent leak-off, height recession/transverse storage and tip extension. Mini-frac analysis is now just a sub-set of the larger PTA methodology. It has the added advantage in that a rules based procedure can be established for the entire interpretation workflow.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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