MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138918719 · doi:10.1111/gfl.12160

Fluid mapping in deeply buried <scp>O</scp>rdovician paleokarst reservoirs in the <scp>T</scp>arim <scp>B</scp>asin, western <scp>C</scp>hina

2015· article· en· W2138918719 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeofluids · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience Foundation of China University of Petroleum, BeijingNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsGeologyKarstCarbonatePetroleum engineeringCarbonate rockSeismic inversionAnisotropyPetrologyGeochemistryAzimuthPaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The storage spaces within deeply buried O rdovician paleokarst reservoirs in the T arim B asin are mostly secondary and characterized by strong heterogeneity and some degree of anisotropy. The types of fluids that fill the spaces within these reservoirs are of great importance for hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. However, fluid identification from seismic data is often controversial in this area because the seismic velocity for this particular reservoir could be significantly influenced by many factors, including pore shapes, porosity, fluid types, and mineral contents. In this study, we employ the differential effective medium‐ G assmann rock physics model to interpret and discuss the characteristics of conventional karstic carbonate reservoirs in the T arim B asin that are filled with different fluids (oil, gas, and water) using logging data and thus objectively build corresponding fluid identification criteria. These criteria are subsequently evaluated by amplitude versus offset (AVO) forward analysis based on typical logging data and further applied to ascertain the reservoir fluid types in two different areas in the T arim B asin based on prestack inversion results. For conventional carbonate reservoirs, gas can be distinguished from heavy oil and water, but heavy oil and water are broadly similar on seismic data. For condensate carbonate reservoirs, water can be differentiated from light oil (i.e., condensates) and gas, but light oil and gas demonstrate substantial similarities in terms of their seismic responses. The predicted fluid results are in good agreement with the results of drilling and oil testing. In particular, modeling the seismically resolvable reservoirs in the carbonate strata in the T arim B asin, which have needle‐ and sphere‐shaped storage spaces (pore aspect ratio &gt; 0.3) and clay content that is lower than 5%, indicates that fluid properties could be properly evaluated if the porosity is larger than 5% for conventional carbonate reservoirs and &gt;7% for condensate carbonate reservoirs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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