MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307665524 · doi:10.2118/211100-ms

Fault Identification for the Purposes of Evaluating the Risk of Induced Seismicity: A Novel Application of the Flowback DFIT (DFIT-FBA)

2022· article· en· W4307665524 on OpenAlexaff
D. Zeinabady, Christopher R. Clarkson, Samaneh Razzaghi, S. Haqparast, Abdul-Latif L. Benson, Mohammad Azad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingMicroseismInduced seismicityGeologyPetroleum engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)SlippageTight gasGeomechanicsFracture (geology)Fault (geology)Geotechnical engineeringSeismologyEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The existence of faults, pre-existing hydraulic fractures, and depleted areas can have negative impacts on the development of unconventional reservoirs using multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs). For example, the triggering of fault slippage through hydraulic fracturing can create the environmental hazard known as induced seismicity (earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing). A premium has therefore been placed on the development of technologies that can be used to identify the locations of fault systems (particularly if they are subseismic), as well as pre-existing hydraulic fractures and depleted areas that can similarly negatively impact reservoir exploitation. The objective of this study is to develop a diagnostic tool to identify these conditions using DFIT-FBA. DFIT-FBA is a modified diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) whereby a sequence of injection and flowback steps are performed to estimate minimum in-situ stress, fracture surface area, reservoir pressure, and permeability in shale and tight reservoirs. The time- and cost-efficiency of the DFIT-FBA method provides an opportunity to conduct multiple field tests at a single point, or along the lateral section of a horizontal well, without significantly delaying the completion program. The proposed diagnostic tool uses an analytical model which considers critical processes and mechanisms occurring during a DFIT-FBA test, including wellbore storage, leakoff rate, and fracture stiffness development. The results of analytical modeling demonstrate that faults, pre-existing hydraulic fractures, and depleted areas of the reservoir can be identified either by implementing multiple cycles of the DFIT-FBA test at a single point, or by applying multiple DFIT-FBA tests at different points along the lateral section of a horizontal well or at different wells. The analytical model is first verified using a fully-coupled hydraulic fracture, reservoir, and wellbore simulator, and flowing pressure responses in the presence of different reservoir heterogeneities are then illustrated. Practical application of the proposed method is demonstrated using DFIT-FBA field examples performed in a tight reservoir. Analysis of the field examples results in the conclusion that a fault occurs near the toe of the horizontal lateral. This finding was confirmed by other field information and provides the opportunity to modify the main-stage hydraulic fracturing design to avoid induced seismicity events. This study proposes a novel, fast, and low-cost approach for identifying faults, pre-existing hydraulic fractures, and depleted areas using the DFIT-FBA test. The recommended approach can help engineers to characterize the reservoir quality along a horizontal well, as well as identify features/conditions that could negatively influence reservoir development, such as faults (and the possibility of creating induced seismicity), pre-existing hydraulic fractures, and reservoir depletion.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→