MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013883717 · doi:10.2118/0906-0058-jpt

Moving From Fringe to Mainstream

2006· article· en· W2013883717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diane Langley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsPetroleumGeographyOil reservesFossil fuelTaigaPeak oilGeologyArchaeologyClimate changeForestryPaleontologyEngineeringAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just below the 60th parallel and well above the 40th parallel there is a place where bird watchers, First Nation peoples, and "Big Oil" mingle. What would otherwise be considered unlikely is relative in this land where sand dunes exist in tandem with wetlands and a boreal forest, and cold snaps bring temperatures to −40°F. The Canadian landscape just south of the Northwest Territory is a nature artist's study in the unlikely. It is here, in the northern city of Fort McMurray, that oil companies—small and large, state-owned and independent—are strategically flocking into a fast-changing energy landscape. In the 1990s, when oil was trading at U.S. $12/bbl, it was unlikely that Canada would witness such a rapid step-up in heavy-oil and oil-sands development. Now conventional oil is on its way to being displaced by synthetic crudes built by 19 separate heavy-oil streams currently being marketed out of western Canada (Fig. 1). Oil sands now account for 39% of Canada's total oil production at approximately 1 million BOPD. By 2020, production could grow to 4 million BOPD. No Longer a Footnote Alberta's oil-sands deposits contain one-third of all known oil reserves in the world, according to the Oil Sands Discovery Center, and are one of the few remaining developments still open to private investment (Fig. 2). The most northerly dune complex in the world exists in Canada; the dunes can reach 35 m in height. Beneath these dunes lies a small percentage of Canada's heavy oil. The largest percentage of heavy-oil reserves lies beneath muskeg, either close enough to the surface to be mined economically by removing the overburden or deeply buried but recoverable by steam-injection methods. The reserves found in three Alberta deposits—Athabasca (40 000 km2), Cold Lake (22 000 km2), and Peace River (8 000 km2)—contain resources that could supply Canada's energy needs for more than 475 years, or total world needs for up to 15 years. With improvements in technology and commercial viability, the production potential of all the oil-sand deposits could be as high as 2.5 trillion bbl of bitumen. The Athabasca deposit, twice the size of Lake Ontario, is estimated at a minimum of 1.6 trillion bbl of bitumen in place. Extraction is not an easy process from the technological perspective, and the environmental perspective is also particularly challenging. The Athabasca oil sands are located in wetland and boreal forest ecosystems, and they are extraordinarily diverse biologically. The forest is home to more than 300 plant species, of which 42 are rare, and 10 are not found anywhere else. The boreal forest is also home to 30 species of wood warblers. The Alberta government calculates that, at today's prices using current technology, approximately 175 billion bbl of crude bitumen is economically recoverable from the three Alberta oil-sands areas. Approximately 315 billion bbl is ultimately recoverable with technological advances. Oil-laden sand may provide a bridge between the hydrocarbon era and future energy forms, so much so that oil-sands production is expected to quickly double during this second growth wave. By 2015, oil-sands production is expected to triple, which will make Canada the fifth-largest producer in the world.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.007
Scholarly communication0.0180.020
Open science0.0020.023
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2260.090

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207