MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404894189 · doi:10.62341/omdn1139

Net Pay Estimates Utilizing the Jensen-Menke Statistical Cut-off Calculation: A Case Study of Glauconitic Sandstone in the Blackfoot Field, Southern Alberta

2024· article· en· W4404894189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Omar Mazen Derder

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Science and Technology Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Statistical analysisGeologyMathematicsStatisticsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cut-offs are required to exclude the reservoir portion that does not contribute significantly to evaluating hydrocarbon in situ or reserve estimation. There is no universally accepted set of definitions, but it is necessary to have a firm grasp on the fundamental terms and expressions used in volumetric analysis employing core, well-log data. Oil and gas are trapped in the Blackfoot Field's multiple fluvial and valley-fill reservoirs of the Glauconitic sandstone. Two wells, A-08-023-23W4 and B-08-023-23W4, were chosen to quantify parameters needed to estimate net pay thickness (NPT) and net-to-gross ratio from the cores data in both wells. Understanding charts, which show how average parameters change with a cut-off value, are used to determine the final cut-off. Using the statistical criterion for the assessed wells, an appropriate porosity limit for the net-to-gross ratio (NTG) estimate is being sought. A perspective on choosing porosity cut-off values from a statistical and core data perspective is provided. The cores used in this investigation were analyzed for permeability and porosity under controlled laboratory settings. It is possible to make inaccurate predictions when using least-squares regression to determine porosity (or permeability) cut-off values. Using a probabilistic method, Jensen and Menke assessed the precision and inaccuracy of various porosity cut-off values. To accomplish this, the line indicating the porosity cut-off values (Øc) was fine-tuned to minimize error and produce the most precise estimate possible. In this case study, we apply the tasks of estimating different porosity cut-off values to identify NPT and NTG and reduce the errors. A-8-23-23W4's Øc is 0.3 porosity unit (pu) off the best estimate ØBE values when using the least squares regression line fitted to the porosity and permeability, and the regression line cut-off errors are 2.7% higher. ØBE matches the least squares regression's NPT cut-off values for well B-8-23-23W4. The least regression line has a lower error rate than the best estimate for NTG, which is a 2.1 pu difference. According to the results, the NTG for well A-8-23-23W4 and well B-8-23-23W4 are predicted to be 0.9 and 0.8, respectively. The application of the Jensen and Menke statistical cut-off is contingent upon the reservoir type, and the optimal statistical method for assessing net pay should be combined with all relevant data and analyzed by geologists and engineers. Key Words: Glauconitic sandstone, core data, Porosity cut-off, least square regression, Net pay thickness.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Science and Technology JournalSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207