Integration of geophysical methods with reservoir simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-lapse seismic modeling was conducted for the Pikes Peak heavy oil field using the results from a reservoir simulation model. Cyclical steam stimulation (CSS) started in 1981 and continues to the present. A flow simulation model was constructed for the region around a seismic profile that was acquired in 1991 and repeated in 2000. The simulator was run from the start of production in 1981 through 2000. The porosity, saturation, pressure and temperature were extracted from the reservoir zone from the flow simulator for the early-production condition in 1991 and almost 10 years later in 2000. The seismic response of the reservoir was computed using a fluid substitution procedure and seismic forward modeling. Comparing the results of 1991 and 2000 indicated that the gas saturation changes caused the largest change in the simulated seismic response. Seismic difference sections showed that thick zones of gas saturation caused more time delay in reflections below the producing zone by lowering velocity within the reservoir zone. Thin zones of gas caused reflection amplitude differences, but not much time delay differences. Temperature and pressure were also correlated with seismic changes, but not as quantitatively as the gas saturation. AVO analysis was used to map the gas distribution. The AVO mapped gas zones correspond reasonably well to the gas zones from reservoir simulation. The simulated seismic response difference section is similar in character to the observed difference sections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".