A high-density, high-resolution joint 3D VSP–3D surface seismic case study in the Canadian oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Canadian oil sands case history illustrates how a high-density, high-resolution joint 3D vertical seismic profile (VSP)–3D surface seismic survey was designed, acquired, and processed to successfully meet the objective of obtaining a detailed image of the subsurface, including the cap rock, the internal architecture of the oil sands reservoir, the underlying carbonates, and the fault and fracture network that runs from surface to basement. The VSP-driven processing was essential in determining the effects of attenuation, multiples, and converted waves, and in quantifying the anisotropy for imaging and time-to-depth conversion. The joint 3D tomography inversion of the VSP and surface seismic data provided an accurate velocity model to migrate the 3D surface seismic data and the 3D VSP data in depth. Each of the 28 wells located within the survey area tied in to the final seismic volume very well. Depth imaging resolved the shallow velocity variations that the initial time processing could not. The apparent (but erroneous) azimuthal velocity effects in the time processing were minimized in the depth processing, resulting in an anisotropy velocity model that was in accordance with the 3D VSP data. A 3D full-waveform inversion test complemented this case history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".