MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391329375 · doi:10.2118/217809-ms

Application of Machine Learning to Create a Discrete Fracture Network Model for Utah FORGE Fracture Injections

2024· article· en· W4391329375 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Bailey, Yanrui Ning, Jeff Bourdier, Israel Momoh, Prathik Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgeFracture (geology)Computer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite materialForging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A method to process microseismic event locations from three injections into the Utah FORGE 16A(78)-32 geothermal well has been developed as part of the 2023 SPE Geothermal Datathon. One objective of the datathon was to develop methods using a few tunable parameters that are capable of multiple realizations of the Discrete Fracture Network (DFN). The method uses open-source software tools and comprises seven steps. The first step is to calculate the square-root of elapsed time from the first event of each stage. The next step is to use DBSCAN (Density Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise) on this RootTime variable, followed by the application of DBSCAN to the spatial variables in each time slice. Each of the resulting clusters is analyzed by principal component analysis to generate fracture planes. DBSCAN leaves multiple outliers that are then harvested using two methods. Criteria are provided to fuse fractures together that are close spatially. The final step is to consider if connective fractures are required to ensure communication of the fracture network with the perforated interval. The Utah FORGE dataset comprises 2798 event locations from three injections. The analysis in time yielded 54 clusters of data, and the spatial analysis then provided 73 distinct fractures, with a residue of 25% outliers. Outliers were harvested in two steps: first, capturing outliers that were adjacent to mapped fractures, and then evaluating the remaining outliers for individual fracture planes using relaxed DBSCAN parameters. After these two steps, the outlier population was reduced to less than 4%, and the total number of mapped fractures grew to 87. It was recognized that fractures can propagate across time slices, so a fracture fusion step was conceived to combine subparallel fractures that were indistinguishable from each other based on error analysis. This was particularly necessary for Stage 3 that had mostly vertical fractures. In this step, 24 fractures were combined, resulting in a total of 63 fractures in the DFN. In the final step, it was recognized that there were no fracture intersections with the perforated interval for Stage 2, and thus an aseismic flow path was inferred. A vertical and a horizontal fracture were inserted to represent this flow. Each DBSCAN application has two input parameters, resulting in possibly many clusters and multiple outliers. The development of steps to harvest outliers and fuse adjacent fractures were conceived to utilize as much data as possible and to recognize the relative errors in event locations. With regards to the Datathon goal of achieving an automated processing sequence, the algorithm runs without manual intervention once the user has chosen four parameters for each stage: the minimum number of points in a cluster and the accepted percentage of outliers for each of the time and spatial clustering steps. The calculated dominant fracture azimuth of N-20-E compares favorably with data from the field, providing some indication of the quality of the results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and ExhibitionSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207