MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220921653 · doi:10.2118/208901-ms

Profile Ultrasonic Velocity Measurements Performed on Slabbed Core: Implications for High-Resolution Permeability Prediction in Low-Permeability Rocks

2022· article· en· W4220921653 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tariq Mohammed, Amin Ghanizadeh, Christopher R. Clarkson, Zhengru Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonic loggingPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyRepeatabilityWell loggingUltrasonic sensorCalibrationAcousticsMineralogySoil sciencePetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Calibration of reservoir models for unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs requires permeability data as input. Accurate permeability prediction from velocity data is desirable due to the relative abundance of velocity data that is typically available during exploration and development programs (e.g., through seismic imaging and well logging). Therefore, the development of fast and inexpensive ‘screening’ techniques tha can provide reliable estimation of permeability at high-resolution (cm-scale) using velocity data could be valuable to exploration/development programs in unconventional reservoirs. A new experimental apparatus is described herein for measuring ultrasonic velocities (P- and S-wave) along the length of slabbed cores of low-permeability rocks at high-resolution (cm-scale). A statistical approach that combines along-core (profile) ultrasonic velocity testing and non-destructive experimental techniques (X-ray fluorescence, mechanical hardness, and profile permeability) is employed to develop predictive models for estimating permeability. Two slabbed cores from the Canadian Montney and Bakken formations, covering multiple geological intervals (tight siltstones/sandstones units), were analyzed for validation purposes. Reasonable agreement is found between log- and lab-derived (ultra)sonic velocity data, indicating similar trends with depth. However, the exact log- and lab-derived (ultra)sonic velocity values are different due to the differences in stress conditions between the field and laboratory measurements and the direction of wave travel. A maximum variation of ±20 m/s is observed for both P- and S-wave velocities when measurements were repeated on the same points, providing evidence of experimental repeatability and reproducibility. Relationships exist between laboratory-measured profile ultrasonic velocities (S-wave), profile permeability, mechanical hardness, and clay content (inferred from elemental composition data). The profile S-wave velocities decrease with increasing permeability (R2 = 0.6, n = 230). Advanced statistical methods (e.g., genetic algorithms) are employed to improve the velocity-permeability relationship and develop models for indirect estimation of permeability from S-wave velocities. The performance of these models is dependent upon lithology and rock fabric (e.g., silt vs. sand, degree of cementation), with a better correlation achieved for intervals with lower porosity and permeability (<±15% maximum discrepancy between measured and predicted permeability values; R2 = 0.78, n = 230). This study introduces a new experimental apparatus, and a practical ‘screening’ workflow, that can be used for permeability prediction using S-wave velocities collected on slabbed cores. This predictive model can be used to estimate permeability below the lower limit (0.001 md) of pressure-decay profile permeability measurements. The findings are beneficial to operators developing tight siltstone/sandstone resources by allowing them to characterize permeability in low-permeability (<0.001 md) intervals for applications such as optimizing stimulation design and subsurface fluid injection.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→