High In Situ Stress Anisotropy Lead to Formation of Complex Fracture Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the process of water injection, due to solid particle deposition and foreign liquid intrusion, the formation near the wellbore was contaminated and blocked. As a result, water injection rate reduced and failed to meet the injection requirements. In order to improve water injection rate and improve oil recovery of offshore oilfields, hydraulic injection tests were carried out in controlled laboratory conditions. In general, the formation of complex fracture patterns is an ideal outcome of the hydraulic fracturing stimulation seeks to achieve. In situ stress condition is an inherited geological condition one can only adopt to. By comparing test results of different experiments that had varied stress and hydraulic injection conditions imposed, we can investigate their impact on the fracture patterns created. This paper presents laboratory evidences to support that if the hydraulic injection condition is managed properly, a complex fracture pattern is possible even under a high in situ stress anisotropy. Even if the in situ stress condition has a large anisotropy, proper hydraulic stimulation operations can still cause complex fracture patterns and thus provide good stimulation efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".