MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054714243 · doi:10.2118/152600-ms

The Impact of Dipping Velocity Models on Microseismic Event Locations

2012· article· en· W2054714243 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Cabarcas, Luke Saugier, G.A. Haas, Joël Le Calvez, J. C. Woerpel

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismBoreholeGeologyHydraulic fracturingSeismologyEvent (particle physics)Fracture (geology)GeodesyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Once a microseism is detected, its source location can relatively easily be identified if the velocity characteristic of the medium traversed by the recorded waveforms is known. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Velocity models are used to estimate, with some degree of confidence, microseismic event locations. This work shows how a simple modification to the velocity model, accounting for a 4.5-degree dip supported by geological data, significantly impacts the event final locations during a borehole-based hydraulic fracturing monitoring job. Overall geometry of the hydraulically-induced fracture system interpreted (e.g. height) is the most affected. For instance, when a preliminary event location is selected without introducing the observed structural component of the beds, these measurements could change by as much as fifty percent. For the reservoir engineer, sometimes unaware of the assumptions made at the microseismic processing level, these differences could imply major changes to the field development plans. These results underscore the importance of integrating all available data and implementing well known quality controls before using microseismic monitoring data for reservoir analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology ConferenceSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207