MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084599936 · doi:10.1190/int-2014-0064.1

Multifocusing 3D diffraction imaging for detection of fractured zones in mudstone reservoirs: Case history

2014· article· en· W2084599936 on OpenAlexafffund
Alana Schoepp, Stephane Labonté, Evgeny Landa

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
FundersShell Canada
KeywordsDiffractionGeologySpecular reflectionAmplitudeDrillingSeismologyWavelengthGeophysical imagingScatteringMineralogyOpticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Diffracted waves are generated by a wave incident on a subsurface obstruction (of a size less than a seismic wavelength) that acts as a point source, scattering the wave in all directions. In the most general terms, diffractors are points and edges and they typically appear in the subsurface as faults, steep reef edges, karsts, or extensive systems of well-developed fractures. Diffracted waves are rarely imaged in sufficient detail for interpretation because they have low amplitudes compared to the reflectivity data, and standard processing flows are not optimized for them. Diffraction imaging, in the form of diffraction multifocusing, is a seismic processing technique that separates the recorded diffractions from the specular reflections (waves reflected from a smooth surface that obey Snell’s law). A 3D volume of the semblance of the diffracted energy can be created and interpreted to indicate the presence of the diffractors. We applied diffraction imaging to seismic data acquired above a fractured mudstone oil reservoir. In an unconventional reservoir, there may be additional hydrocarbon storage or permeability in the fractures that could affect drilling, completions, and production. We mapped the diffraction energy at the reservoir level and correlated it with rates of initial production of the wells. In addition, the diffraction imaging amplitudes were qualitatively related to gas shows encountered during drilling and may be used to predict the relative increase or decrease in gas shows in this reservoir. The ability to predict the presence of natural fractures allowed us to spatially locate well trajectories and may impact decisions regarding well operations and completions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207