MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998878222 · doi:10.2118/2000-101-ea

Seismic Velocity Imaging of the Steen River Crater: Technique Development for Exploring Crater Reservoirs

2000· article· en· W1998878222 on OpenAlexaffabout
A.R. Hildebrande, Michael J. Mazur, Robert R. Stewart, Armin W. Schafer, D.W. Hladiuk, L. Scheonthaler, Mark Pilkington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterGeologySeismic velocitySeismologyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The ∼25 km-diameter Steen River impact structure, (59 ° 30' N, 117 ° 38' W) is the remnant of the largest known impact crater in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). The eroded crater lies buried under ∼200 m of cover with no surface expression necessitating geophysical and drilling projects for its exploration. In this area, the WCSB is composed of ∼1 km-thick gently SW-dipping strata. The terrain is predominantly poorly drained taiga, necessitating winter operation for most exploration and production activities. As of this writing, the crater rim hosts gas production of 30 Mmcf/d from the Slave Point Formation, but a second gas plant is expected to begin production during 2000. Seasonal petroleum production of ∼1000 BOPD occurs from the Keg River Formation. Approximately one dozen Slave Point gas wells have been drilled with sandface AOF potential up to 95 Mmcf/d, and exploration is continuing around the crater rim. Initial gas production was on the regionally high side, the northeastern rim of the crater. Reserves of ∼70 bcf have been established. IMPACT ORIGIN Although Steen River was discovered more than thirty years ago with documented evidence of shock metamorphism 1,2, little has been published about it in the open literature, and its classification as an impact structure has been challenged from time to time. Shock metamorphism was first reported from well 12-19-121-21W5M. An examination of chips recovered from the 3–12 well located ∼3 km SSW of the 12–19 well also reveals abundant evidence of shock metamorphism, and altered and recrystallized melts in a unit once logged as volcanics that immediately underlies the Cretaceous cover. Well 12–19 penetrated impact lithologies immediately below the Cretaceous cover at a depth of 184 m. An ∼120 m thick unit of clay-altered, vesicular rock was recorded on top of the unequivocal crystalline basement rocks 1, establishing a minimum structural uplift of 1000 to 1100 m relative to the surrounding basement surface. The upper unit could be a remnant of crater floor breccias like that found in the 3–12 well rather than representing a dyke contained within the central uplift. GEOPHYSICAL DATA SETS, WELL CONTROL, AND POTENTIAL FIELD MODELLING Hydrocarbon exploration companies have acquired more than one hundred and seventy 2-D seismic reflection profiles over the impact structure, and one 3-D seismic survey has been executed over the northwest corner of the crater rim. Approximately sixty wells have been drilled in and near the crater, providing generally good control for the coherent seismic data. All known hydrocarbon reservoirs occur in structural closures formed by the rim deformation. Reflection seismic data outline parts of the rim uplift in some detail, but most profiles record only chaotic reflectors interior to this. Mapping the impact structure's interior structures has been attempted with magnetic- and gravity-field surveys. In 1995 an aeromagnetic survey with a maximum of 0.5 km line spacing was flown across the entire structure, revealing large-amplitude central and concentric anomalies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207