MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997758227 · doi:10.1306/05051413193

Determination of the stable isotope composition and total dissolved solids of Athabasca oil sands reservoir porewater: Part 2. Characterization of McMurray Formation waters in the Suncor–Firebag field

2014· article· en· W1997758227 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin R. Cowie, Bruce R. James, Michael Nightingale, Bernhard Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsSuncor Energy (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsGeologyGeochemistryIsotopeOil fieldStable isotope ratioReservoir modelingHydrology (agriculture)MineralogyGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringAsphaltArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A new stable isotope approach was used to determine the total dissolved solids concentration and stable isotope composition for oil sands drill core extracted porewater at the Suncor–Firebag oil sands field in northeastern Alberta, Canada. A stable isotope mixing approach was used to correct for contamination by drilling fluids in the porewater samples. The mean isotopic compositions of oxygen (δ18O) and hydrogen (δ2H) in water for fluid samples from 12 wells at Firebag were −20.5 ± 1.4‰ and −157 ± 11‰, respectively. The mean total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the reservoir formation water in 12 sampled wells was 1100 ± 400 mg/L (1σ). These results suggest that the McMurray Formation water at Firebag is primarily derived from Holocene groundwater recharge, and that the water within the bitumen reservoir is similar to groundwater well samples obtained within the McMurray Formation at Firebag. The results obtained in this study are consistent with regional trends and previously proposed local hydrogeological flow conditions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207