Physicochemical Properties of Bitumen and Solids from Grosmont Carbonate Cores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Grosmont and Nisku carbonate formations combined contain more than 25% of Alberta's crude bitumen on the basis of initial in-place volumes, making carbonates a significant potential source of bitumen in Alberta. About 400 billion barrels of bitumen is estimated to be located in the Upper Grosmont units1. We have studied seven cores from increasing depth in the formation. X-Ray diffraction data of core particles showed pervasive dolomitization and only minor differences were observed in trace clay and calcites. The cores with trace clay and calcite impurities appeared to have the highest bitumen content. Dean-Stark analysis of four selected cores sub-samples revealed that bitumen contents ranged from 5.84 to 15.4 wt%, with negligible water present in the as-received samples. Photoacoustic Fourier transform infra red spectroscopic analysis (FTIR-PAS) of core solids surfaces before and after the bitumen was extracted showed minor differences among surfaces of the particulates from Upper Ireton (UIR) to Upper Grosmont carbonate (UGC). The organics coatings, not visible by the naked eye, were revealed earlier by fluorescence microscopy and from these previous studies showed how solubility in water was affected.2 Asphaltene contents of bitumens extracted from the cores were all higher than for typical Athabasca oilsand bitumens. Bitumen viscosities measured as a function of temperatures using a falling ball viscometer and a rotational rheometer with plate-plate geometry at constant low shear indicated small differences among the bitumen samples and between the dolomitic bitumens compared to oilsands and SAGD bitumens studied before. Arrhenius fits gave activation energies within experimental errors for the two methods used. Densities measured as a function of increased temperatures were above those of water and varied among samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".