Insights on Controlling Factors of Hydraulically Induced Seismicity in the Duvernay East Shale Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Historically, the Duvernay East Shale Basin had been regarded as a seismicity‐quiescent region. However, an M L 4.18‐magnitude earthquake on 04/03/2019 was triggered due to hydraulic fracturing of two horizontal wells. The physical mechanism and controlling factors of this large‐magnitude earthquake are not well understood. In this work, the coupled modeling of the M L 4.18 case is conducted to quantify the poroelastic effects during fluid injection and to reveal the triggering mechanism of this earthquake cluster. Additional simulations of tested cases with different hydraulic, geomechanical, and operational parameters are also conducted to quantify the effects of these factors on hydraulically induced seismicity. It is found that the hydraulic fractures of two wells propagated within the Duvernay formation and connected with the inferred fault. The increase in pore pressure reduced the shear stress of the fault and caused the fault slip. The hydraulically induced seismicity is susceptible to the low permeable injection layer and high‐permeable fault, less rigid fault with low‐Biot's coefficient, large fluid injection, and proximity of hydraulic fracturing‐fault distance. Enlarging the distance between the stimulated well and seismogenic fault is the first‐order choice to mitigate seismic risks. Under the proximity of well‐fault distance, reducing the fracturing size job would be an effective approach to reduce the expected magnitude of hydraulically induced seismicity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".