MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319642156 · doi:10.3720/japt.77.28

AVO inversion for sand-distribution prediction in oil sands reservoir

2012· article· en· W2319642156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayato Kato, Robert R. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsGeologyOil shaleInversion (geology)MineralogyPetroleum engineeringReservoir modelingGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceAsphaltGeomorphologyStructural basinMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Athabasca oil sands, which is a large deposit of heavy oil, located in northeast Alberta, Canada, it is common that impermeable shale intricately exists within the reservoirs and can potentially act as permeability baffles. For reservoir management, it is important to precisely delineate the intrareservoir shale. The main goals of this study are to establish a rock physics model of poorly consolidated, heavy oil-saturated sands and to estimate density by applying three-term AVO inversion to P-P reflected and P-S converted wave data.We first explore viscoelastic features of heavy oil by using ultrasonic velocity measurement data collected over a wide temperature range. By using viscoelastic model, temperature and frequency dependences of the bulk and shear moduli are predicted. Furthermore, we establish a rock physics model of poorly-consolidated, heavy-oil saturated sands. For the case of inclusions in a matrix, Generalized Singular Approximation method is used to obtain the effective properties. The model incorporates the viscoelastic features of heavy oil to estimate velocity dispersion associated with the viscosities.Density has a large contrast between reservoir and shale and is a desired property for reservoir delineation in the Athabasca oil sands. A P-P and P-S joint AVO inversion method is developed by extending an Bayesian inversion technique to multicomponent data. We apply the developed method to the Hangingstone oilfield to estimate density volume. The estimated density is practically consistent with the well log, implying that the method can provide a quantitative description of oil sands reservoir.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum TechnologySame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207