MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911851987 · doi:10.2118/194316-ms

Close Encounters in the 3rd Dimension: Using Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests DFITs from the Alberta Duvernay Shale Formation to Quantify Simultaneous Horizontal- & Vertical-Plane Hydraulic Fracture Growth

2019· article· en· W2911851987 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 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedGeologyHydraulic fracturingFracture (geology)OverburdenMicroseismDirectional drillingGeotechnical engineeringOil shaleComminutionPetroleum engineeringMechanicsEngineeringSeismologyAnisotropyDrillingMaterials scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper will benefit engineers and geoscientists interested in creating representative hydraulic fracture simulation models and optimizing commercial-scale fracture treatments. The paper focuses on the emerging Duvernay shale formation in Alberta, Canada. Well fracturing pressures are often significantly higher than the Overburden (OB, lithostatic) pressure. Pressures above OB likely create horizontal (hz) bedding plane fracture components since sedimentary rocks are almost always weaker along bedding planes. Most fracture design simulators do not account for the simultaneous existence of multi-plane fractures (Figure 1). Therefore, scaled treatment designs for optimizing fluids, proppant schedules and production performance may be flawed. A key question is: What proportion of the overall fracture volume do horizontal-plane features take? The answer can be sought using the Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) workflow for Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs) described by Bachman et al (2012, 2015) combined with simple PKN and GDK fracture models to represent the hz and vertical plane fracture components. DFIT analysis techniques and interpretation are hotly debated topics of late. The authors believe a portion of the gap in the understanding of how hydraulic fractures behave is a result of assuming fracture components are fully, or dominantly, vertical. Analysts often interpret high fracturing pressures as tortuosity or near-well friction. However, during the fall-off period after pumping a DFIT, pressures above OB can persist for up to 20 minutes after pump shut-down. Analysis of these tests often exhibit early-time radial flow signatures which are coincident with the OB gradient of ~22kPa/m (1psi/ft) also indicative of hz plane fractures. In Nicholson et al 2017 four field DFIT examples were presented showing strong evidence of hz plane fractures in various depths and formations found in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. In the current paper DFIT PTA analysis is applied to two West Shale Basin Duvernay datasets. A physical model is presented (Figure 1) that incorporates the in-situ stress regime, rock fabric, and pore pressure and that allows history matching of DFIT leak-off and closure behavior for fractures above OB pressure. Simple calculations are provided to estimate the volume and dimensions of these same components for a small volume, single viscosity, no-proppant injection DFIT. This unique approach provides a valuable calibration point for building more advanced simulation models.

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)0.001
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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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