MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207488165 · doi:10.2118/203921-ms

Coupled Poroelastic Modeling to Characterize the 4.18-Magnitude Earthquake Due to Hydraulic Fracturing in the East Shale Basin of Western Canada

2021· article· en· W3207488165 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Simulation Conference · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoromechanicsHydraulic fracturingGeologyInduced seismicitySeismologyPore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringHydrogeologyStructural basinPermeability (electromagnetism)Fault (geology)PetrologyGeomorphologyPorosityPorous medium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, the elevated levels of seismicity activities in Western Canada have been demonstrated to be linked to hydraulic fracturing operations that developed unconventional resources. The underlying triggering mechanisms of hydraulic fracturing-induced seismicity are still uncertain. The interactions of well stimulation and geology-geomechanical-hydrological features need to be investigated comprehensively. The linear poroelasticity theory was utilized to guide coupled poroelastic modeling and to quantify the physical process during hydraulic fracturing. The integrated analysis is first conducted to characterize the mechanical features and fluid flow behavior. The finite-element simulation is then conducted by coupling Darcy's law and solid mechanics to quantify the perturbation of pore pressure and poroelastic stress in the seismogenic fault zone. Finally, the Mohr-coulomb failure criterion is utilized to determine the spatial-temporal faults activation and reveal the trigger mechanisms of induced earthquakes. The mitigation strategy was proposed accordingly to reduce the potential seismic hazards near this region. A case study of ML 4.18 earthquake in the East Shale Basin was utilized to demonstrate the applicability of the coupled modeling and numerical simulation. Results showed that one inferred fault cut through the Duvernay formation with the strike of NE20°. The fracture half-length of two wells owns an average value of 124 m. The brittleness index deriving from the velocity logging data was estimated to be a relatively higher value in the Duvernay formation, indicating a geomechanical bias of stimulated formation for the fault activation. The coupled poroelastic simulation was conducted, showing that the hydrologic connection between seismogenic faults and stimulated well was established by the end of the 38th stage completion for the east horizontal well. The simulated coulomb failure stress surrounding the fault reached a maximum of 4.15 MPa, exceeding the critical value to cause the fault slip. Hence the poroelastic effects on the inferred fault were responsible for the fault activation and triggered the subsequent ML 4.18 earthquake. It is essential to optimize the stimulation site selection near the existing faults to reduce risks of future seismic hazards near the East Shale Basin.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · 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