MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783735078 · doi:10.2118/189840-ms

Reinterpretation of Flow Patterns During DFITs Based on Dynamic Fracture Geometry, Leakoff and Afterflow

2018· article· en· W2783735078 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSeven Generations EnergyUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsComminutionFracture (geology)MechanicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringFlow (mathematics)Materials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The goal of this study is to explain the full spectrum of flow patterns observed before and after closure during diagnostic fracture injection tests (DFITs) by considering the dynamic nature of fracture geometry, variable leakoff rate and afterflow volume caused by wellbore storage. A fit-for-purpose simulation model is used to simulate DFITs and generate pressure responses in low-permeability (tight) reservoirs. The cohesive zone model in Abaqus® is used to simulate hydraulic fracture propagation and closure. A customized leakoff model incorporated into the software accounts for variable leakoff rate as a function of reservoir properties, fracture pressure, fracture surface area and exposure time. The afterflow is modeled by including a wellbore volume and accounting for wellbore storage. Results are compared to field data to explain the full spectrum of flow patterns and fracture dynamics observed in pressure transient analysis of DFITs. The overall falloff period is interpreted, using PTA diagnostic plots, for relative magnitudes of afterflow, leakoff rate and fluid flow in the formation. Initially, afterflow is high, resulting in fracture expansion, which is characterized by a unit slope on the Bourdet-derivative plot. The afterflow does not necessarily end after the unit slope terminates; the end of fracture expansion is signaled by a characteristic hump on the derivative plot. During fracture expansion, the afterflow decreases and the leakoff rate increases due to the larger fracture area. When the leakoff rate dominates over afterflow, fracture closure mechanics can be conceptualized as a moving hinge-closure, where the fracture volume reduces, and fracture tip extension occurs as fluid is pushed to the tip of fracture (indicated by fluctuations in the derivative). The transition from afterflow to leakoff dominance and the moving hinge-closure manifest as a semi-horizontal trend on the Bourdet-derivative. Subsequently, a progressive fracture closure occurs gradually along the fracture, identified by an increasing trend or a sharp decline on the primary pressure derivative, depending on the conductivity. Different estimates of closure pressure will be obtained early and late in this process. The pressure behavior immediately after full closure is observed to be affected by the residual leakoff and the continuing afterflow. Once all of these fracture, wellbore and leakoff processes are abated, the reservoir response is observed. This study provides a clear understanding of the different mechanisms affecting pressure behavior during DFITs for tight reservoirs in order to arrive at more reliable estimates of fracturing parameters and reservoir properties. As an example, mechanisms leading to false before- and after-closure radial flow identification are explained.

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 score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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