MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033559617 · doi:10.4043/16727-ms

Alpine Field Simultaneous Angle Dependent Inversion

2004· article· en· W2033559617 on OpenAlexaff
Abhaya Ajay R. Badachhape, Daniel R. Therry, Herbert W. Swan, Steve R. Moothart

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersConocoPhillips
KeywordsInversion (geology)GeologyStack (abstract data type)PetroleumOil fieldGeodesyGeomorphologyPetroleum engineeringComputer sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simultaneous angle dependent inversion was performed on three angle stacks from the Alpine Field, located east of the NPRA in Alaska. Additionally, post-stack inversion was carried out on the near angle stack (utilizing the P-impedance log data as is), and on the far angle stack (utilizing elastic impedance generated at a range of 25 to 45 degrees). The results of the work helped the interpreters to better characterize the distribution of the reservoir in the field, and was used to facilitate well planning and reserves estimation. The inverted results suggest that the main Alpine C sand extends farther to the north than the seismic data alone indicate. This is verified by a new well which encountered the predicted thickness of reservoir sand. This allows the team to target an additional 20 million barrels of reserves. Figure 1: Map of the Alaskan North Slope, showing the location of Alpine Field.(Available in full paper) Introduction The Alpine Field on Alaska's North Slope (Figure 1) is jointly being developed by ConocoPhillips Alaska and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. The field currently produces at 100,000 barrels of oil per day, with a planned production increase to 130,000 barrels per day by 2005. The field produces mainly from the Alpine C sands, in the Late Jurassic aged Upper Kingak Formation. In order to reach the production increase, proper well planning and placement of development wells needs to be accomplished. One of the tools relied upon to reach this goal is simultaneous angle dependent inversion. This utilizes the AVO aspects of the reservoir rocks to better delineate the reservoirs. Crossplot analysis of the log data shows that post-stack seismic inversion of the full-stack or near-stack volume alone is not sufficient to discriminate the reservoir sands from the adjacent shales. There is a large overlap of the P-impedance values in the two lithologies. Description and Application of Processes Commercially available software is utilized to perform the simultaneous angle dependent inversion, which is essentially a pre-stack inversion methodology utilizing full Zoeppritz modeling and Aki-Richards approximations for some of the elastic impedance log generation. Figure 2 shows the seismic coverage and well logs that were employed in the study. The methodology is as follows. First, the horizons that are going to be used as constraints need to be interpolated/extrapolated to every trace. Next, meticulous stretching and squeezing of the logs needs to be performed to tie the well logs in time to the seismic data. The tied logs are then used to extract wavelets around every well also as in a multi-well mode to obtain an average wavelet. The wavelet estimation is performed on the near angle stack. Elastic impedance generation is done for each well to match the angle range for the mid-angle and far-angle stacks. The single-well and multi-well wavelet estimation is then carried out for the mid-angle stack and far-angle stack, utilizing the appropriate elastic impedance log data. Note that in this case, high-order anisotropic velocity analysis had been performed on each angle stack to line up events.

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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207