MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969261321 · doi:10.4043/18970-ms

Review of Nova Scotia's Deepwater Drilling and Its Effect on the 2002 Resource Assessment

2007· article· en· W1969261321 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brenton Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Research Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingGeologyStructural basinNova scotiaPetroleumNatural gas fieldSubmarine pipelinePetroleum engineeringResource (disambiguation)Fossil fuelNatural gasOceanographyPaleontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Scotian Slope is 850km long with an area of 80,000km2 and has been tested by only ten wells clustered into two narrow areas. Four deep water wells drilled between 1982 and 1986 were Shubenacadie, Shelburne, Evangeline and Tantallon. These wells were dry and abandoned. Between 2002 and 2004 industry drilled six deepwater wells on the Scotian Slope resulting in one gas discovery (Annapolis), one gas show (Newburn), and four dry wells (Balvenie, Crimson, Weymouth and Torbrook). The Scotian Basin is a passive margin with proven petroleum systems and past production from the Cohasset-Panuke oil fields, ongoing gas production from the Sable Project and probable future production from Deep Panuke gas field. This activity is all on the shallow Scotian Shelf. Around 2000, the exploration focus shifted to the deepwater Scotian Slope because of the impressive hydrocarbon discoveries and high success rates in the deepwater of other circum-Atlantic basins such as the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Brazil and West Africa, and recently Northwest Africa (Mauritania). In 2002 the CNSOPB completed a deepwater resource assessment prior to results from the recent six wells. The assessment consisted of 12 geostatistical computation runs to capture the diversity of play areas and play types. The recent drilling results affect three of those twelve runs by altering input parameters addressing the presence and quality of reservoir. Gas in Annapolis and Newburn proves that an active petroleum system is working. Annapolis found 27m of generally thin gas-bearing sands and Newburn encountered several thin (2-3m) gas-bearing sands. Furthermore, many of the gas-bearing sands were encountered unexpectedly below 5000m with average porosities from 14-19% which expands the zone of prospectivity. In 2006 the CNSOPB revised the 2002 assessment. The impact of the deepwater well results on the undiscovered gas and oil potential was found to be minimal. The comparison is shown in Table 1, with gas potential reduced only by several Tcf and oil potential by fractions of billions of barrels. Table 1. - Assessment Results(Available in full paper) Introduction The deepwater slope offshore Nova Scotia extends from the shelf break at 200m of water to almost 4000m. The slope area under study is defined by the seaward limit of the Argo salt and industry seismic coverage generally within the 3000 to 4000m range. A highly exaggerated three-dimensional perspective of the offshore bathymetry, with the original four slope wells, is shown in Figure 1. Fig. 1 - Pre 1987 Deep Water Wells This area was the subject of the CNSOPB's 2002 report; "Offshore Hydrocarbon Potential Deepwater Slope" (Kidston, A.G., Brown D.E., Smith B.M., and Altheim, B., 2002). This study included a basin analysis and numerical assessment of the hydrocarbon potential for gas and oil. Since that report, six new deepwater wells were drilled between 2002 and 2004. This paper examines these well results and their impact on the 2002 assessment numbers. In order to fully understand thea ssessment process used in this paper, the original report should be consulted. In addition to the evaluation of the recent six wells, four wells drilled in the mid-1980's are also examined.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207