MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332196316 · doi:10.1190/segam2015-5899850.1

Frequent Seismic Monitoring for Pro-Active Reservoir Management

2015· article· en· W2332196316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Albena Mateeva, Kees Hornman, Paul Hatchell, Hans Potters, Jorge López

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGeologyPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Beyond exploration, the most important role for geophysics in the oil and gas industry is to influence field operations, so that the value of existing assets is fully realized. The recent trend in time-lapse seismic has been toward very frequent reservoir monitoring, with the aspiration to optimize both near- and long-term field management. In this paper we describe steps taken by Shell to tackle the main challenges of frequent seismic monitoring — cost, intrusiveness, and value realization. Offshore, cost reductions can be achieved through novel types of receivers and more efficient vessel utilization. Onshore, cost and footprint reductions are sought through novel survey designs, including fiber-optic DAS cables, sparse geometries, and movable subsurface sources. A demonstration of value is currently pursued through a large onshore trial of continuous monitoring of steam injection at Peace River, Canada, active since 2014. Initial results indicate that steam non-conformance can be diagnosed, remediation actions taken, and their effectiveness evaluated. Inter-disciplinary collaboration is a must. The associated workflow for assimilating frequent seismic data continues to develop and should benefit future monitoring projects both onshore and offshore.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207