MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054068192 · doi:10.1071/aseg2001ab099

Buffalo Oil Field – Geophysical Success Under Big Bank

2001· article· en· W2054068192 on OpenAlex
Brenton Oke, M. A. Stanley, Tony Slate, Paul Begg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologySeafloor spreadingOil fieldCarbonateGeophysical imagingGeophysicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Buffalo Oil Field is located in Production Licences WA-19-L and WA-21-L in the Bonaparte Basin, approximately 300 km off the coast of northern Western Australia. The discovery well, Buffalo-1, was drilled in September 1996 and encountered a 45 metre oil column within sandstone reservoirs of the Callovian Elang Formation.The Top Elang boundary is typically very difficult to interpret on seismic data. Modelling has shown this boundary to have a Class II AVO response, i.e. where a polarity reversal of the seismic event occurs across the CMP gather, resulting in attenuation of the event during stacking.In addition to this fundamental geophysical problem, the Buffalo field underlies a seafloor carbonate bank ("Big Bank"), which rises from the seafloor, 300 m below sea level, up to a depth of 27 m below sea level. Interpretation of the underlying geology on conventionally processed seismic data is made very difficult by severe ray-path distortion from the steep sides of this bank and the large velocity contrast with the surrounding water. At top reservoir level the very poor seismic data quality is a consequence of poor signal penetration, poor reflectivity, faulting, multiples and severe imaging problems, which also give the reservoir section the appearance of being highly faulted.A 3D seismic survey was acquired in 1996 over the field, and a vast improvement in data quality and reliability was obtained through advanced processing techniques incorporating Wave Equation Datumming (WED). The remaining depth-structure uncertainty was quantified by a geological-model-based interpretation and mapping process to provide a range of realistic possible structural outcomes. A key assumption - that velocity changes across the field would be a relatively minor contributor to the depth uncertainty - was confirmed by development drilling results, which demonstrated the success of the WED method in removing most of the undesirable effects of the carbonate bank.This paper focuses on the WED processing and interpretation process which reduced the uncertainty of oil-in-place calculations for Buffalo to an acceptable level and allowed development of the field to proceed.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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