Reservoir quality evaluation of the Farewell sandstone by integrating sedimentological and well log analysis in the Kupe South Field, Taranaki Basin-New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study used the sedimentological and well log-based petrophysical analysis to evaluate the Farewell sandstone, the reservoir formation within the Kupe South Field. The sedimentological analysis was based on the data sets from Kupe South-1 to 5 wells, comprising the grain size, permeability, porosity, the total cement concentrations, and imprints of diagenetic processes on the reservoir formation. Moreover, well log analysis was carried on the four wells namely Kupe South 1, 2, 5 and 7 wells for evaluating the parameters e.g., shale volume, total and effective porosity, water wetness and hydrocarbon saturation, which influence the reservoir quality. The results from the sedimentological analysis demonstrated that the Farewell sandstone is compositionally varying from feldspathic arenite to lithic arenite. The analysis also showed the presence of significant total porosity and permeability fluctuating between 10.2 and 26.2% and 0.43–1376 mD, respectively. The diagenetic processes revealed the presence of authigenic clay and carbonate obstructing the pore spaces along with the occurrence of well-connected secondary and hybrid pores which eventually improved the reservoir quality of the Farewell sandstone. The well log analysis showed the presence of low shale volume between 10.9 and 29%, very good total and effective porosity values ranging from 19 to 32.3% as well as from 17 to 27%, respectively. The water saturation ranged from 22.3 to 44.9% and a significant hydrocarbon saturation fluctuating from 55.1 to 77.7% was also observed. The well log analysis also indicated the existence of nine hydrocarbon-bearing zones. The integrated findings from sedimentological and well log analyses verified the Farewell sandstone as a good reservoir formation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".