MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386494585 · doi:10.56952/arma-2023-0138

Pre-Drilling Prediction of 3D Geomechanical Parameters Based on Seismic Data: A Case Study of Tarim Oilfield

2023· article· en· W4386494585 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bo Zhou, Xin Zhang, Li Zhao, Bao Zhou, Long Chen, Yunhu Lu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeomechanicsTarim basinDrillingInversion (geology)Seismic inversionDrillOil fieldWell loggingSubmarine pipelineNatural gas fieldPetroleum engineeringHydrocarbon explorationSeismologyStress fieldGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodTectonicsNatural gasEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A pre-drill prediction method of 3D geomechanical parameters based on seismic data is proposed. Firstly, the wave impedance parameters are predicted in the target area by the logging-constrained method, which mainly uses post-stack seismic data and logged data from drilled wells. The density and velocity data are obtained by separating the wave impedance data. Then, the density and velocity data are used as input to calculate 3D geomechanical parameters in the region, including elasticity parameters, strength parameters, and stress parameters. In particular, experimental data are used to correct the accuracy of the model. The results accurately reflect the geological complexity and non-homogeneity of the region by evaluating the elastic properties, mechanical properties, and stress magnitude of each point. This method can greatly improve the longitudinal resolution of the inversion results by fully exploiting a priori information from the logs and involving them in the seismic inversion process. Pre-drill parameters prediction of a complex field in the Tyuritag of the Tarim Basin is carried out. INTRODUCTION A growing number of oil and gas field development projects are facing the challenge of safe, rapid, and efficient development, such as offshore projects like Hibernia and the Gulf of Mexico in Canada, and onshore projects in tectonically active areas like the Cusiana field in Colombia and the Tarim Basin in China. However, as drilling depths continue to deepen, the geological environment encountered in oil and gas development is becoming increasingly complex. The difficulty of engineering problems related to geomechanics is also increasing. On the one hand, there are more and more complex accidents in various wells, such as well wall instability, well leakage, and sand production. Underground accidents seriously increase the time and cost of construction operations. It is estimated that at least 10% of the average well budget is used for unplanned operations due to wellbore instability (Sheng, 2006; Wei, 2012). On the other hand, the inaccuracy of geomechanical modeling makes geomechanics-related engineering measures unable to achieve the expected goals. In shale oil and gas development, about 30-50% of fracturing clusters do not contribute to product improvement. The root cause is poorly designed hydraulic fracturing strategies due to the lack of accurate geomechanical data (Zhang, 2018; Parshall, 2015).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well Engineering→French-language works237,207→