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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.032
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