English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This post provides commentary on recent four papers on diagnostic fractureinjection testing (DFIT). The first paper uses in-situ deformation measurementsto directly observe fractures opening and closing during fractureinjection-falloff tests (Guglielmi et al., 2022). The second compares variousstress measurement techniques in a series of fracture/injection tests from theBedretto project (Broker and Ma, 2022). The third statistically reviews resultsfrom applying the interpretation procedure from McClure et al. (2019) to 62DFITs across nine different shale plays (McClure et al., 2022). The fourth isan op-ed written in JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology) by an advocate of thetangent method for estimating DFIT closure stress (Buijs, 2021; 2022).

Commentary on Four New DFIT Papers: (a) In-Situ Measurements from EGS  Collab; (b) Comparison of Techniques at the Bedretto Project; (c) Statistical  Review of 62 DFITs; and (d) An Article Advocating the Tangent Method