MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939282304 · doi:10.1306/13371584st643556

Depositional Setting and Oil Sands Reservoir Characterization of Giant Longitudinal Sandbars at Ells River

2013· book-chapter· en· W1939282304 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul L. Broughton

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsChevron (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsGeologyAsphaltGeochemistryResource (disambiguation)Earth scienceMining engineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The McMurray Formation (Aptian) Ells River bitumen deposit is hosted by two to three superimposed wave-dominated shoreface sands distributed as giant longitudinal bars northwest of Fort McMurray, Athabasca oil sands deposit, northeastern Alberta. The multibillion-barrel Ells River steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) bitumen reservoir is 15 to 40m (49–131 ft) thick, with up to 12 to 14% bitumen by weight. Significant bitumen deposits have been discovered in recent years, where thickened McMurray clastics accumulated at the junctions of secondary paleovalley tributaries with the main northward-flowing trunk system and within offset, detached, secondary paleovalleys such as at Ells River. The middle and upper McMurray bitumen sands at Ells River accumulated as wave-dominated shore-face sands that formed giant longitudinal bars at the mouth of a north-trending paleovalley. This developed as an embayment on the Devonian paleosurface to the west of the main Athabasca bitumen fairway. The Ells River clastics were sourced from the east by long shore drift emanating from the tide-dominated delta that fronted the Cretaceous seaway, north of the Fort McMurray mining area. These middle and upper McMurray shoreface sands transgressed westward along the shelf margin to the Ells River embayment and covered the lower McMurray bay-fill clastics and paleosols. The Ells River depositional model contrasts with the main Athabasca bitumen deposits that accumulated as fluvial and estuarine tidal-and point-bar channel sands along themain bitumen fairway and infilled the paleovalley trunk system. The northward-flowing trunk system was entrenched into the underlying Devonian paleotopographic surface and broadened into a tide dominated deltaic complex at the confluence with the Cretaceous seaway during the middle McMurray. These fluvioestuarine sands nowhost extensive minable oil sand deposits in the Fort McMurray area of northeastern Alberta. The Ells River reservoir-quality sands were deposited as tidal sand-wave complexes with large-scale cross bedding. Reservoir-quality sands are the upper shoreface sands, which are relatively clean and have low volumes of shale (Vsh ã 5%). Lower quality sands are the lower shoreface sands that have been locally modified by waves, as shown by reactivation structures and thin, discontinuous, clay-draped wave-ripples. At Ells River, a partially muddy maximum flooding surface (MFS) interval, strongly burrowed by Thalassinoides, separates the middle McMurray lower SAGD reservoir chamber from the overlying upper McMurray reservoir chamber. This horizon may impair vertical steam chamber growth between the lower and upper reservoir levels for some areas of the Ells River bitumen deposits. Additional operational challenges are thin to patchy lean bitumen zones (bulk oil weight, <6%) and/or water saturation (Sw ã 40%); potential influx of mobile water from zones overlying the midreservoir MFS baffle; the shallow overburden (<200 m; <656 ft) that necessitates use of low-pressure operations; and the presence of partially depleted top gas sand that may locally be a thief zone.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooksSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207