MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017487732 · doi:10.2118/1213-0014-jpt

Emerging Frontiers: The Arctic Frontier

2013· article· en· W2017487732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeff Spath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticFrontierOceanographyIndigenousGeographyGeologyPhysical geographyBeaufort seaCircumpolar starArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

President's column One of the oil and gas industry’s most talked about emerging frontiers—but perhaps least understood in terms of familiar metrics—is the Arctic region. The Arctic refers to a portion of the globe above 66.5o N latitude that is roughly the size of Africa. Encompassing about 6% of the Earth’s surface, the Arctic consists of about one-third land, one-third continental shelf, and one-third waters deeper than 500 m (Budzick. 2009). The Arctic contains portions of eight countries: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. I cannot imagine any other region on Earth this large that has had so few efforts to explore for, develop, and produce hydrocarbons. Arctic History Indigenous people of the Arctic have known for centuries about oil seeps along the coastal plains, and even used pitch as a sealant on canoes. Back in 1789, oil seeps along the Mackenzie River, located within Canada, were reported by Russian settlers in Alaska (Bishop. 2011). Shell geologists first investigated Alaska’s oil potential in 1918. Sub-arctic oil was first discovered in Canada’s Northwest Territories in the 1920s. Russian geoscientists began exploring northern Siberia during World War II, and made their first major oil and gas discoveries there in the early 1960s (Bishop. 2011). The first US federal lease sale on Alaska’s North Slope was held in 1958, and the first offshore lease sale in the Beaufort Sea in 1979. From the 1960s through the late 1980s, oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay, gas was discovered in the Barents Sea, and the first exploration wells were drilled in the US Chukchi Sea. After a period of inactivity due to low oil prices, exploration resumed in Canada’s Mackenzie Delta region in 2000, and in the US portion of the Beaufort Sea in 2005. The 5-month 2010 US moratorium on new deepwater drilling had an adverse impact on US Arctic drilling activity, and political and environmental opposition to Arctic exploration has been tougher since the moratorium was lifted, both in the US and elsewhere. Nevertheless, due to growing demand and declining production from mature oil fields worldwide, international operators and governments have been initiating new Arctic exploration activities. This past summer, Norway opened a new area in the southeastern Barents Sea to offshore drilling. The service sector is following. Schlumberger and Baker Hughes, for example, opened new bases in the Norwegian town of Hammerfest, on the 71st parallel. Size of the Prize Any estimate of Arctic hydrocarbon resources suffers from considerable uncertainty, due to the limited amount of data from wells drilled throughout this enormous region. In 2008, the US Geological Survey completed the Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal. The study estimated total undiscovered conventional hydrocarbon resources of 90 billion bbl of oil, 1,669 Tcf of natural gas, and 44 billion bbl of natural gas liquids—a total of 412 billion BOE. That constitutes about 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13% of the undiscovered oil (Bishop. 2011).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.013

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207