MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481642352 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12174

Burying receivers for improved time‐lapse seismic repeatability: CO2CRC Otway field experiment

2014· article· en· W1481642352 on OpenAlexaff
Valeriya Shulakova, Roman Pevzner, J. Christian Dupuis, Milovan Urošević, Konstantin Tertyshnikov, David Lumley, Boris Gurevich

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersAustralian GovernmentAustralian National Low Emissions Coal Research and Development
KeywordsGeophoneRepeatabilityGeologyVertical seismic profilePassive seismicBoreholeSeismologySubmarine pipelineEnvironmental geologyRegional geologyGemologyEngineering geologyTectonicsGeotechnical engineeringTelmatologyVolcanism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT 4D seismic is widely used to remotely monitor fluid movement in subsurface reservoirs. This technique is especially effective offshore where high survey repeatability can be achieved. It comes as no surprise that the first 4D seismic that successfully monitored the CO2 sequestration process was recorded offshore in the Sleipner field, North Sea. In the case of land projects, poor repeatability of the land seismic data due to low S/N ratio often obscures the time‐lapse seismic signal. Hence for a successful on shore monitoring program improving seismic repeatability is essential. Stage 2 of the CO2CRC Otway project involves an injection of a small amount (around 15,000 tonnes) of CO2/CH4 gas mixture into a saline aquifer at a depth of approximately 1.5 km. Previous studies at this site showed that seismic repeatability is relatively low due to variations in weather conditions, near surface geology and farming activities. In order to improve time‐lapse seismic monitoring capabilities, a permanent receiver array can be utilised to improve signal to noise ratio and hence repeatability. A small‐scale trial of such an array was conducted at the Otway site in June 2012. A set of 25 geophones was installed in 3 m deep boreholes in parallel to the same number of surface geophones. In addition, four geophones were placed into boreholes of 1–12 m depth. In order to assess the gain in the signal‐to‐noise ratio and repeatability, both active and passive seismic surveys were carried out. The surveys were conducted in relatively poor weather conditions, with rain, strong wind and thunderstorms. With such an amplified background noise level, we found that the noise level for buried geophones is on average 20 dB lower compared to the surface geophones. The levels of repeatability for borehole geophones estimated around direct wave, reflected wave and ground roll are twice as high as for the surface geophones. Both borehole and surface geophones produce the best repeatability in the 30–90 Hz frequency range. The influence of burying depth on S/N ratio and repeatability shows that significant improvement in repeatability can be reached at a depth of 3 m. The level of repeatability remains relatively constant between 3 and 12 m depths.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207