Seismic Efficiency and Overshoot of Fractures Associated with Stimulation in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary To better understand the different fracturing process of two passive seismic datasets collected over a 30 month period for two heavy oil reservoirs, utilizing steam injection and water flooding, we investigate radiated energy and seismic efficiency. We calculate the Savage-Wood Efficiency (ŋsw) and overshoot of microseismic events recorded in two reservoirs with different stimulations and find under similar geological conditions and time period, the seismic efficiency, for steam injection compared to water flooding are unique across the datasets implying that temperature and fluid pressure has a different impact on the fracturing dynamics. Reservoir A (stream injection), has 4069 events (Mw = −2.2 top −0.2) with low efficiency (ŋsw=0.01 to 0.48) and considered in overshoot (ε=0.1 to 0.5). Reservoir B (water flooding), has, 1763 events, but higher magnitude range (Mw = −1.4 to 1.8); with a combination of low efficiency (overshoot ε=0.002 to 0.49) and high efficiency (undershoot ε=−415 to 0.49) events. Overshoot occurs when the dynamic strength of the fault is relatively higher than the final stress acting on the fault and less energy is radiated; where undershoot occurs when the dynamic strength is relatively lower than the final stress on the fault and in a state of dynamic weakening.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".