MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889785138 · doi:10.26233/heallink.tuc.84042

Analysis of well log data using time series models and geostatistical methods

2019· other· en· W6889785138 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical University of Crete · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariogramInterpolation (computer graphics)Gumbel distributionWeibull distributionSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesKrigingGaussianLog-normal distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis focuses on the statistical analysis of well log data from two hydrocarbon reservoirs located in Labrador Island, Western Newfoundland (Canada). The data is obtained from two onshore wells (Finnegan and Seamus). We focus on the analysis of four logs (spontaneous potential, Gamma radiation and two induction logs) from six different formations. The thesis has three main objectives: (i) to estimate the probability distributions and spatial correlations in data obtained from the same well, (ii) to evaluate cross-correlations between logs across the two different wells, and (iii) to explore methods for the reconstruction of missing well log data. With respect to the first objective, the exploratory statistical analysis indicates that the majority of the respective properties do not follow the Gaussian distribution. However, after removing an empirically determined trend function, the residuals are closer to the Gaussian distribution. The spontaneous potential and Gamma radiation indicators can be described by Cauchy and Gumbel distributions, while the induction indicators by means of the Gamma and Weibull distributions. Variogram analysis suggests that spontaneous potential and Gamma Radiation conform to the same type of theoretical variogram model with similar sill and range values. In reference to the second objective, the statistical analysis indicates weak cross correlations between log data measured at the two different wells. The Gamma radiation logs show both positive and negative cross correlations which are overall higher (in magnitude) than for the respective correlations for the other three logs. Regarding the third objective, the comparison of the performance of different imputation, interpolation and time series algorithms for gap filling indicates that linear interpolation, linear weighted moving average and less often the Kalman-ARIMA methods are the top-performing algorithms for well log gap filling.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical University of CreteSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207