Seismic Response Models and the AVO Simulation of Coal-Bearing Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of coal in complex structures featuring sandstone reservoirs seriously hinders reservoir characterization and the identification of fluids in subsurface formations. Coal can strongly obscure the reflections from sandstone, easily leading to false bright spots during exploration; thus, reservoirs and their boundaries cannot be accurately described. Furthermore, sandstone layers intercalated with thin coal seams form complex composite reflections. Therefore, considering the complexity of coal-bearing reservoirs together with the geological evolution of coal and actual logging data, this study systematically analyses the seismic reflections of coal-bearing reservoirs. First, the seismic responses of various coal-bearing reservoir models are established by evaluating multiple well logs of the target layer. Then, by forward-simulating theoretical seismic data, seismic response models comprising different lithological combinations are established. Finally, seismic attributes (such as the amplitude, frequency and phase) of coal-bearing and non-coal-bearing strata are compared, and the seismic responses of typical lithological combinations of coal-bearing reservoirs are summarized. A single-well model test and a comparison between synthetic and seismic data confirm that numerical simulations can be used to forward model the seismic response characteristics of different sand–coal models, thereby eliminating the influences of coal and accurately characterizing sandstone reservoirs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".