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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. C. Bachman, Behnaz Afsahi, D. A. Walters

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207