Deep-burial dissolution and brecciation in dolostone reservoirs: Striking similarities between the Devonian Keg River Formation of western Canada and the Ordovician Ellenburger group of west Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deeper burial dissolution of dolomitized fabrics created most of the reservoir quality in several Devonian Keg River oil pools on the Comet Platform in northwestern Alberta, Canada. This process also created reservoir quality in two Ordovician Ellenburger dolostone oil pools on the Eastern Shelf of the Midland Basin in west Texas, and provided an alternative explanation for reservoir development unrelated to the subaerial karstification model. Several observations confirmed deeper burial dissolution of Keg River dolostones. First, dolomites replaced, or cemented, grains previously sutured by pressure solution. Their subsequent dissolution postdated this pressure solution, confirming burial dissolution. Second, late-forming saddle dolomites dissolved. Third, secondary porosity developed along, or cross cut, stylolites, often in zebra dolostone fabrics, or formed along fracture planes that cut stylolites. These burial fractures often intersected secondary pores, implying a causal relationship. Fourth, dolostone breccia clasts contained stylolites rotated at different angles to each other and the horizon, confirming deeper burial brecciation. In the Keg River Formation on Comet Platform, proximity to conjugate reactivated basement faults that developed off of a master wrench fault, the Hay River Shear Zone, controlled deeper burial dissolution and pool entrapment. Hydrothermal fluids, either calcium rich or acidic in composition, were moved along these faults and promoted extensive dissolution of completely dolomitized fabrics. Ellenburger dolostone reservoirs at Suggs and Withers Fields on the Eastern Shelf of Texas also resulted from deeper burial dissolution of completely dolomitized facies. The Keg River dissolution fabrics were replicated in Ellenburger samples, with the exception of zebra dolostones. Ellenburger reservoir development was closely aligned to faults and fractures associated with a master wrench fault, the Ft. Chadbourne Fault. These faults were inferred to have moved hot (possibly hydrothermal?), deeper burial diagenetic fluids that were calcium-rich, or periodically acidic, promoting dolomite dissolution and secondary porosity development.
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 | 0.001 | 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".