MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601315580 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12527

Constructing a discrete fracture network constrained by seismic inversion data

2017· article· en· W2601315580 on OpenAlexaff
Lennert D. den Boer, Colin M. Sayers

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAmplitude versus offsetSeismic inversionAnisotropyAzimuthPermeability (electromagnetism)Environmental geologyEngineering geologyFracture (geology)Offset (computer science)Seismic to simulationSeismic anisotropyHydrogeologyFluid dynamicsReservoir modelingRegional geologyAmplitudeSeismologyGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMechanicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Rock fractures are of great practical importance to petroleum reservoir engineering because they provide pathways for fluid flow, especially in reservoirs with low matrix permeability, where they constitute the primary flow conduits. Understanding the spatial distribution of natural fracture networks is thus key to optimising production. The impact of fracture systems on fluid flow patterns can be predicted using discrete fracture network models, which allow not only the 6 independent components of the second‐rank permeability tensor to be estimated, but also the 21 independent components of the fully anisotropic fourth‐rank elastic stiffness tensor, from which the elastic and seismic properties of the fractured rock medium can be predicted. As they are stochastically generated, discrete fracture network realisations are inherently non‐unique. It is thus important to constrain their construction, so as to reduce their range of variability and, hence, the uncertainty of fractured rock properties derived from them. This paper presents the underlying theory and implementation of a method for constructing a geologically realistic discrete fracture network, constrained by seismic amplitude variation with offset and azimuth data. Several different formulations are described, depending on the type of seismic data and prior geologic information available, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach are compared. Potential applications of the method are numerous, including the prediction of fluid flow, elastic and seismic properties of fractured reservoirs, model‐based inversion of seismic amplitude variation with offset and azimuth data, and the optimal placement and orientation of infill wells to maximise production.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207