MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152377277 · doi:10.1190/1.2369812

Trend‐kriged seismic velocities to predict pore pressure and to model effective stress for reservoir characterization in a deepwater basin

2006· article· en· W2152377277 on OpenAlexaff
S. Noeth, Colin M. Sayers, Patrick J. Hooyman, Lennert D. den Boer, N. C. Banik, Ran Bachrach, George Bunge, Randy Utech, L. Leu, Johnathan Moore

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyReservoir modelingPore water pressureStress (linguistics)Structural basinCharacterization (materials science)Effective stressGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringSeismologyGeomorphologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To optimize drilling decisions and well planning in overpressured areas, predrill pore pressure predictions are essential. Knowledge of pore pressure implies knowledge of the effective stress, which is one of the key inputs for 3D and 4D seismic reservoir characterization. This case study focuses on how high-resolution seismic velocities (Banik et al., 2003) were used to predict pore pressure and effective stress in a deepwater environment. The velocity to pore pressure transform was calibrated using existing well log data. To allow for consistency between well and seismic data and stratigraphic layers, geostatistical mapping (trend-kriging) techniques were applied using several key horizons. Thus, the final trend-kriged model is constrained by the structural framework and the geology of the basin.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207