MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381328017 · doi:10.1190/geo2022-0607.1

Characterizing hydraulic fracture growth using distributed acoustic sensing-recorded microseismic reflections

2023· article· en· W4381328017 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanyuan Ma, David W. Eaton, Chaoyi Wang, Alemayehu Aklilu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsMicroseismGeologyFracture (geology)Reflection (computer programming)Hydraulic fracturingSeismologyAcousticsTime domainFrequency domainComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Hydraulic fracturing is crucial for enhancing hydrocarbon production from unconventional reservoirs. The characterization of fracture geometry and propagation has significant value in understanding reservoir response and designing more efficient completions. Distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) is a rapidly developing technology that can be used for this purpose because it provides wide-aperture observations of microseismic wavefields that contain direct P and S arrivals as well as converted and reflected waves. In addition to traditional approaches for microseismic event location and source mechanism analysis, the high spatial resolution of DAS microseismic recordings allows the imaging of induced fractures with reflected waves. Reflections are generated by waves radiated from microseismic events that impinge on hydraulic fractures created during prior treatment stages. We use a straightforward method based on f-k filtering and ray tracing to map reflected S waves from the time domain to reflectivity in the space domain. A case study of fracture imaging indicates that inferred fracture development, based on reflection imaging, is consistent with fracture-driven interactions observed using low-frequency DAS (LF-DAS) data. In addition, this study reveals reflection images of apparent distal fractures that do not reach the fiber and thus are not directly observed by LF-DAS. Fracture images obtained from several microseismic events during the same stage provide the opportunity to observe snapshots of dynamic fracture evolution processes.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207