MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322809860 · doi:10.2118/179824-ms

Monitoring IOR/EOR Onshore with Frequent Time-Lapse Seismic - Status and Survey Adaptations for the Middle East

2016· article· en· W2322809860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Albena Mateeva, Kees Hornman, S. Grandi, Hans Potters, Jorge López, J. La Follett

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverburdenGeologyFootprintProcess (computing)SeismologyMining engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract IOR/EOR stimulation is a complex process that requires frequent areal monitoring to optimize recovery. On-demand seismic surveys are a suitable solution if cost, quality, environmental, and efficiency conditions are met. In this paper, we discuss the state of the art. We show that frequent buried seismic has the necessary quality and was able to add value to steam injection operations at a heavy oil field in Canada. However, in its current form, buried seismic is too expensive and intrusive. That is why, for future deployments, we seek cost and footprint reductions through judicious reduction of survey frequency (from days to weeks or months apart) and novel survey designs such as a buried cross-spread with Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) receivers and movable subsurface sources. We are in the process of maturing the buried cross-spread solution. Its application to some extreme settings found in the Middle East (deep reservoirs with weak seismic expression under thick and complex overburden) is expected to be challenging. A promising alternative already available is 4D VSP with DAS in multiple wells. This solution requires sufficient surface access, fiber optic cables in wells, and skillful seismic processing.

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)0.000
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 score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West AsiaSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207