MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104605482 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0075.1

Fracture mapping using seismic amplitude variation with offset and azimuth analysis at the Weyburn CO2 storage site

2012· article· en· W2104605482 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander Duxbury, Don White, C. Samson, Stephen A. Hall, James Wookey, J. M. Kendall

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaCarleton UniversityHusky Energy (Canada)
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKCenovus Energy
KeywordsGeologyAnisotropyFracture (geology)AmplitudePetrologyAzimuthSeismologyAmplitude versus offsetGeotechnical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Cap rock integrity is an essential characteristic of any reservoir to be used for long-term CO2 storage. Seismic AVOA (amplitude variation with offset and azimuth) techniques have been applied to map HTI anisotropy near the cap rock of the Weyburn field in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, with the purpose of identifying potential fracture zones that may compromise seal integrity. This analysis, supported by modeling, observes the top of the regional seal (Watrous Formation) to have low levels of HTI anisotropy, whereas the reservoir cap rock (composite Midale Evaporite and Ratcliffe Beds) contains isolated areas of high intensity anisotropy, which may be fracture-related. Properties of the fracture fill and hydraulic conductivity within the inferred fracture zones are not constrained using this technique. The predominant orientations of the observed anisotropy are parallel and normal to the direction of maximum horizontal stress (northeast–southwest) and agree closely with previous fracture studies on core samples from the reservoir. Anisotropy anomalies are observed to correlate spatially with salt dissolution structures in the cap rock and overlying horizons as interpreted from 3D seismic cross sections.

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 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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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