Unconventional Resource Assessment of the Montney Formation in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ERCB/AGS has collected data 293 core samples from the Montney Formation in Alberta and run a series of geochemical and geological tests to characterise the formation for resource assessment. The goal of this talk is to discuss the regional distribution of the data and its significance to unconventional gas production in Alberta. The data will be used for an unconventional gas resource analysis of the Montney. The geochemical and geological tests include adsorption isotherms, Rock Eval/TOC, organic petrography, vitrinite reflectance, XRD whole rock and clay mineralogy, SEM imaging, thin section analysis and imaging, porosimetry, permeametry, and pycnometry. We will present maps and graphs of adsorbed and free gas content, thermal maturity, TOC, net silt and shale, porosity feet, mineralogy and grain density variations. The work we do will help to bridge the Alberta Montney knowledge gap and possibly spur interest in the area. This presentation will focus on the geochemical characteristics of the Montney Formation as they relate to resource assessment. A few of the key factors influencing shale gas resource assessment include TOC, thermal maturity and adsorbed gas content. Samples we have collected have shown TOC ranges from 0.06 to 3.64 wt percent (Figure 1) and vitrinite reflectance values between 0.31 and 2.45. Through mapping and graphing we will analyse these results and their distribution. In addition, we will compare the adsorbed gas content versus the free gas content. Lastly, log porosity varies with grain density. In the Montney, grain density varies with the amount of dolomitisation. Mineralogy-derived grain density calculations (Table 1) will be presented to show spatial and temporal distribution and hence porosity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".