MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231989561 · doi:10.2118/2002-259

Propagation of In Situ Horizontal Fractures in Shale Due to Steam Injection

2002· article· en· W4231989561 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R.C.K. Wong, K.T. Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsOil shaleSteam injectionGeologyIn situPetroleum engineeringPaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal recovery processes such as cyclic steam stimulation and steam assisted gravity drainage involve steam injection of large volume into oil sand formation. Dilatation of oil sand formation due to steam injection induces stresses and deformations in the shale overburden. Natural horizontal fissures or fractures of large extent with no tensile and cohesive strength are commonly found in the shale formation. New fractures will be initiated at these in-situ horizontal fracture tips if the stresses and deformation induced by the steam injection are excessive. Reactivation and propagation of these in-situ fractures in the shale formation could cause not only casing impairment problem but also environmental hazard. This paper presents an analytical model to investigate the propensity for fracture propagation in shale due to steam injection under tensile (mode I) and shear (model II) fracturing. Practical numerical examples are presented along with risk assessment and implications. Introduction Heavy oil and bitumen are major energy resources in Canada, and have become a major focus for the oil and gas industry. The heavy oil deposits of Canada contain 30% of the world's recoverable oil (ERCB 1991). The challenge in developing this resource is the difficulty in recovering these highly viscous substances. Steam stimulation is one of the viable thermal recovery methods to extract bitumen from the oil sand ores buried in deep overburden. In this steam-based recovery method, large volumes of steam at high temperatures and pressures (300 °C and 10 MPa) are injected into the oil sand formation at depths of 450–500 m through wells in rows (Butler 1991). Steam injection produces stress and thermal dilatation of oil sand. Because oil sands are dense uncemented sands, the resulting deformation induced during the recovery processes could be excessive and detrimental to surface and subsurface facilities (Morgenstern et al. 1988). Surface heave of up to 20 cm was recorded (Wang and Kry 1997). Overlain the oil sand formation are lowpermeability clay shales forming an impermeable barrier to migration of fluid. Natural horizontal fissures or fractures are commonly found in these shale formations (Williams and Burk 1970; Wong 1998). These fractures have been formed or subjected to large shearing process during glaciation. Therefore, there is no tensile strength or small residual strength remained along these fractures. One of the geomechanics-related problems is if these preexisting fractures would propagate under steam injection. Interception of these fractures with subsurface well casing could lead to casing impairment or rupture (see Fig. 1). The main objective of the present paper is to evaluate the potential of initiation and propagation of fractures in shales induced by cyclic steam stimulation in oil sand reservoir using a simple analytical model (Chau et al. 2000). This model considers analytically the stress intensity factors at a crack parallel to the free surface of a half-plane under the action of a center of dilatation. It is proposed that the introduction of steam to the oil sand formation can be modelled by introducing a centre of dilatation (dipole) in a two-dimensional homogenous isotropic elastic half-plane (see Fig. 1).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207