MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072147348 · doi:10.1190/1.3554383

High-frequency anomalies in carbonate reservoir characterization using spectral decomposition

2011· article· en· W2072147348 on OpenAlex
Yandong Li, Xiaodong Zheng

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

VenueGeophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonateGeologyCarbonate rockReservoir modelingPorosityAnomaly (physics)AttenuationMineralogyLow frequencyPetroleum reservoirPetrologyGeochemistryPetroleum engineeringSedimentary rockGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low-frequency shadows have often been used as hydrocarbon indicators in the application of spectral decomposition. The reason behind the low-frequency anomaly has been explained as high-frequency energy attenuation caused by hydrocarbons. However, in our practice on carbonate reservoir characterization in two areas, Precaspian Basin and Central Tarim Basin, China, we encountered high-frequency anomalies, i.e., the isofrequency slices or sections at high frequencies exhibit anomalies associated with the good carbonate reservoir, particularly in the tight limestone background. We used the product of porosity and thickness as a parameter to measure the quality of the carbonate reservoir of each well and classified the 46 wells in our two studied areas into three types. Type I wells contain high-porosity thick reservoirs, type II wells contain reservoirs with moderate porosity and thickness, and type III wells contain only low-porosity thin reservoirs. The results were that 12 out of 13 type I wells exhibit high-frequency anomalies, and 30 out of 33 type II and type III wells do not exhibit high-frequency anomalies. We further validated the existence of this high-frequency anomaly by forward modeling analysis and fluid substitution experiments using the actual well-log curves measured in the carbonate reservoir. The results showed that in our two studied areas the high-frequency anomalies are more common than low-frequency shadows that can be observed only when the thickness of the reservoir is more than half of the wavelength or the reservoir rocks are extremely unconsolidated. Therefore, this high-frequency anomaly may be used as a more reliable indicator for a good carbonate reservoir than low-frequency shadows in real applications.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.194 · 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