Research on Formation Pressure Prediction Method for Ultra-Deep Tight Sandstone Based on Collocated Cokriging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to conventional reservoirs, the prediction of pressure in ultra-deep tight sandstone formations is difficult. The prediction of seismic pressure is more challenging than well-logging pressure prediction. The main methods for seismic pressure prediction include the equivalent depth method, Eaton method, Fillippone formula, and modified versions. Among them, the Eaton method is widely used and has good effectiveness. However, this method relies on difficult-to-obtain normal compaction trend lines, which leads to low prediction accuracy in space. To address this issue, a method combining the Eaton method and collocated cokriging is proposed. Herein, the Eaton formula is used to predict formation pressure at the well, with compressional wave velocity as the covariate for predicting the main variable—formation pressure. By simulating the shear wave velocity based on seismic compressional wave velocity, the influence of various parameters on the prediction results is analyzed, and the accuracy of this method is verified by comparing it with other methods. The proposed method is then applied to predict formation pressure in the ultra-deep formations of the Junggar Basin. The simulation results show that the collocated cokriging method achieves higher planar accuracy and better matches the experimental expectations in terms of prediction results. The application results also demonstrate the scientific effectiveness of the combined method, which has achieved good results in practical production applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".