MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132484703 · doi:10.2118/0312-0044-jpt

Higher Resolution Subsurface Imaging

2012· article· en· W2132484703 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyExploitDownstream (manufacturing)Computer scienceEnvironmental geologyMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringHydrogeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

R&D Grand Challenges - This is the fifth in a series of articles on the great challenges facing the oil and gas industry as outlined by the SPE Research and Development (R&D) Committee. The R&D challenges comprise broad upstream business needs: increasing recovery factors, in-situ molecular manipulation, carbon capture and sequestration, produced water management, higher resolution subsurface imaging of hydrocarbons, and the environment. The articles in this series examine each of these challenges in depth. The R&D Grand Challenges Series, comprising articles published in JPT during 2011 and 2012, is available as a collection on OnePetro (SPE-163061-JPT). Introduction It is hard to read road signs if you have poor eyesight, which is why driver’s licenses are issued with restrictions requiring that corrective lenses must be worn. Likewise, it is hard to find and exploit subsurface resources if you can’t clearly see your targets or monitor the movement of fluids in the reservoir. Engineers now have powerful tools to precisely model subsurface reservoir production behavior, but a precise answer is still wrong if it is derived from an inaccurate subsurface description. Geoscientists make maps and rock property models of the subsurface by interpreting images that are produced from remote sensing data. Analogs from modern depositional environments and outcrop exposures guide subsurface data interpretation to predict ahead of the bit, then postdrill geostatistics are used to fill in stratigraphic details between wellbore control points. Selection of the right depositional model, facies distribution, and geostatistical analog depends on having the sharpest, most detailed and accurate image of the subsurface possible—the Grand Challenge of Higher Resolution Subsurface Imaging. Over the past century, the industry has relentlessly sought ways to improve subsurface imaging of hydrocarbons. Canadian inventor Reginald Fessenden first patented the use of the seismic method to infer geology in 1917. A decade later, Schlumberger lowered an electric tool down a borehole in France to record the first well log. Today, advances in seismic and gravity data acquisition, electromagnetics, signal processing and modeling powered by high-performance computing, and the nanotechnology revolution are at the forefront of improved reservoir imaging. In this paper, we will examine the challenges of getting higher resolution subsurface images of hydrocarbons and touch on emerging research trends and technologies aimed at delivering a more accurate reservoir picture.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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