MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008928087 · doi:10.2118/148976-ms

The Ultimate Potential for Unconventional Gas in the Horn River Basin: Integrating Geological Mapping with Monte Carlo Simulations

2011· article· en· W2008928087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael F. Johnson, Warren Walsh, Peter A. Budgell, James Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsCanada Energy Regulator
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodGeologyGridHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsStatisticsGeotechnical engineeringGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Horn River Basin of northeastern British Columbia, Canada, contains natural gas in three Devonian shale units. Isopachs, depths, and net-to gross-pay ratios were determined from well logs for the Muskwa, Otter Park, and Evie Shales and then gridded. Pressure gradients were determined from well test and production data and then gridded into a single grid shared between shales. Because grid points were shared between each grid, volumetric and adsorbed gas equations could be integrated into each grid point. Static values or distributions could then be applied to equation variables and Monte Carlo simulations run to determine probabilistic gas in place (GIP) and marketable resources for each grid point, which were then summed for each shale. Grid points for the isopach and depth maps were treated as static values in the equations while net-to-gross and pressure gradient grid points became most likely values in Beta distributions where end points were assigned using regional low and high values. Most non-mapped variables in the equations were filled with Beta distributions based on typical values in the area and then applied across the basin without any local variations. On each distribution, whether based on mapped or unmapped variables, a second, overlying distribution was applied on a basin scale. This made entire iterations run a full range from pessimistic to optimistic. A few non-mapped variables in the equations were given static values. Recoverable gas resources were estimated by applying a recovery factor to free GIP estimates. Recoverable volumes from adsorbed GIP estimates were determined from a recovery factor applied to the portion of gas that would desorb during production as pressure decreased to the assumed well abandonment pressure. To determine marketable gas, gas impurities and fuel gas that would be used for processing and transport were estimated and subtracted from the recoverable estimates. Further, certain lower quality areas of the basin were excluded from the assessment, based on a low likelihood of being developed. The Horn River Basin shales are estimated to contain 10 466 109m3 (372 Tcf) to 14 894 109m3 (529 Tcf) of GIP with the expected outcome of 12 629 109m3 (448 Tcf). The marketable resource base is expected to be 1 715 109m3 (61 Tcf) to 2 714 109m3 (96 Tcf), with an expected outcome of 2 198 109m3 (78 Tcf).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Unconventional Resources ConferenceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207