MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396567588 · doi:10.1190/tle43050286.1

A new rock physics model for fractured oil shale reservoirs in Mahu oil field

2024· article· en· W4396567588 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Hongyan, Caiguang Liu, Tang Tingming, Gang Chen, Zhenlin Wang, Tang Genyang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleOil fieldPetroleum engineeringGeologyField (mathematics)Shale oilGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringPaleontologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The exploration of unconventional reservoirs such as oil shale has become a focus of research in the oil/gas industry, but due to the diversity of lithology and structural complexity of shale reservoirs, the study of their rock physics laws is a challenge. By analyzing the physical, lithologic, and fluid characteristics of oil shale reservoirs in the Mahu area of Xinjiang, China, we adopted a variety of effective-medium theories to carry out rock physics modeling. We analyzed the differences in the calculation results of various theoretical models, and finally constructed a set of rock physics modeling processes suitable for oil shale reservoirs. The analysis shows that the calculation results of Voigt-Reuss-Hill (VRH) and Hashin-Shtrikman (HS) average for mixed mineral matrix are very similar, but there are certain differences between the upper and lower bounds calculated by them. The upper and lower bounds of HS average are closer than VRH average. We used the Kuster-Toksoz effective-medium, differential effective-medium (DEM), and self-consistent approximation models to construct the rock skeleton and analyzed the differences of the models. The results of the three models are almost identical, but their assumptions and limitations differ. We used DEM in the final shale model, considering the large porosity and the order of inclusion filling. According to the fracture distribution characteristics of oil shale reservoirs, we used an inclined fracture model to describe the fractures with different structural characteristics. Finally, the established shale rock physics model was used to calculate the actual logging data, and the results of elastic parameters are consistent with the measured data. Through the inversion of the fracture parameters, the inversion results are consistent with the measured results as a whole, indicating that the model has certain applicability to the simulation of oil shale 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207