Integrated analysis of cyclic steam stimulation in a heavy oil reservoir: Microseismicity, brittleness, and landing height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compare microseismic observations against pumping information, landing heights, and various well logs. The data were acquired during cyclic-steam injection between September 2002 and December 2005. Ninety-five percent of the microseismicity occurred during injection and in the overburden; 70% of the events happened during the first cycle. Microseismicity in the overburden is likely caused by a greater brittleness than in the reservoir and a cluster of microseismic events in regions with a smaller landing height, thereby facilitating dry cracking due to the volumetric expansion of the reservoir. Yet, other areas with equally shallow landing heights displayed little to no microseismicity, pointing to an inhomogeneous steam front. Furthermore, recorded microseismicity is subject to the Kaiser effect in that event rates are low in subsequent cycles until the current injection pressure exceeds the previous maximum, explaining why 70% of the events occurred during the first cycle and possibly why microseismicity during production accounted for only 5%. Microseismicity in brittle formations can be caused by pore-pressure variations (wet cracking) and/or changes in the total stresses (dry cracking). Identification of pore-pressure variations in the overburden is important because it may indicate containment challenges. Analysis of the growth rate of the microseismic cloud combined with the shallow landing height indicated dry cracking to be more likely than wet cracking but analysis of additional data is required to strengthen this conclusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".