MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410518648 · doi:10.1155/gfl/7745871

Comprehensive Evaluation Method of the Tight Oil Reservoir Quality in the Ordos Basin

2025· article· en· W4410518648 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Song, Jian Shi, Xinju Liu, Yang Wei-guo, Shuheng Li, Shuxun Zhou, Haiyang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeofluids · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersNational Science and Technology Major ProjectMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStructural basinGeologyTight oilPetroleum engineeringQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceGeochemistryGeomorphologyPaleontologyOil shale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wuqi area of the Ordos Basin boasts significant resource potential in the Chang 8 member of the Yanchang Formation. However, under the dual control of lithology and physical properties, reservoirs are generally dense and heterogeneous, and the quality of the oil layer changes rapidly, which brings difficulties to the optimization of favorable areas. To evaluate the reservoir quality more accurately, based on core observations, and logging and dynamic data analysis, combined with casting thin sections, scanning electron microscopy, high‐pressure mercury injection, nuclear magnetic resonance, and other related experiments, different reservoir types and characteristics were analyzed, and a comprehensive method for evaluating the reservoir quality was established. There are three types of sand body structures in the shallow‐water delta of Chang 8 in the study area, including the continuous superposition type, interval superposition type, and lateral single‐layer type. They mainly experienced diagenesis, such as compaction, cementation, and dissolution. Among these, porosity loss in the Chang 8 reservoir due to compaction and cementation reached 79.3%, consistent with trends observed in other continental tight oil plays such as the Songliao and Junggar Basins, while the improvement in physical properties due to dissolution was minimal. The main parameters influencing different reservoir types are optimized, and the comprehensive classification with the multivariate coefficient is constructed after providing coefficients with different weights. Four reservoir types are quantitatively delineated, among which the physical properties of Type I reservoirs are the best and the physical properties of Type IV reservoirs are the worst. Combined with the difference in the characteristics of sensitive logging curve responses, four logging parameters, density, neutron, resistivity, and acoustic time difference, are optimized, and different reservoir types are quantitatively identified by Fisher discriminant analysis. Comprehensively considering the change in the vertical sand body structure and reservoir type, the three key parameters of interlayer density, interlayer frequency, and reservoir thickness are selected, and the comprehensive evaluation index N of reservoir quality is innovatively constructed. The proposed evaluation index effectively decouples lithological and petrophysical variations, refining reservoir quality assessments for enhanced exploration and production strategies. The greater the N value is, the better the quality of the oil layer. The smaller the N value is, the thinner the oil layer, the more developed the interlayer, and the worse the oil layer quality. The N index exhibits a strong correlation with production characteristics, indicating that the method has effectively evaluated reservoir quality and provided a theoretical basis for targeting favorable areas.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeofluidsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207