The Use of Seismic Attributes to Enhance Structural Interpretation of Z-Field, Onshore Niger Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integrated approach to the study of the structural patterns and seismic attributes was carried out on the Z-field using a 3D seismic data covering approximately 56 Km2 of western belt of the Niger Delta, checkshot data for well to seismic tie and log information for six wells from the field. This study aimed at investigating the available prospects, the responses of the basic seismic attributes to structural and stratigraphic elements within the study area. In all, six hydrocarbon bearing levels were delineated from well logs and correlated across the field. These horizons were analysed and petrophysical parameters estimated. An integration of well and seismic data was done by applying a time-depth relationship to identify where the hydrocarbon bearing sands from well posts on the seismic lines. These studies revealed two major regional growth faults (F1 and F5) dipping in the NE-SW directions and crestal faults (F4) dipping in the northern direction. The north dipping crestal fault F4 is responsible for holding the hydrocarbon in the proven closure A. The northernmost regional growth fault F1 is responsible for trapping the hydrocarbon in the prospect closure B in the north eastern part of the field. The closure C prospect is a four way dip closure to the spill point but becomes fault assisted on regional growth faults F1 and F5 at deeper levels. The trapping mechanism identified from our interpretation indicates that the field is characterized mostly by fault assisted closures and a few four way closures. The fault zones are identified by distinct displacement of walls and amplitude distortions towards the fault zones identified on the seismic sections and the extracted amplitude maps. At the south-western part of the field, using only seismic Stratigraphic approach, a part of fault F5 was too subtle to be identified, and this may lead to missing out on the potentials of the identified closure C prospect. Thus, where conventional seismic interpretation has failed, seismic attribute analysis complements.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".