MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089523015 · doi:10.2118/82027-ms

Gas Exploration and Development Strategies in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2003· article· en· W2089523015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. W. Flint, Robert K. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural basinProductivityNatural gasSedimentary basinConstant (computer programming)Sedimentary rockEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceEngineeringGeochemistryGeomorphologyEconomicsWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is a major source of natural gas supply for the North American market, with Y2000 basin productivity at more than 16 Bcf/d. Significant natural decline requires that in excess of 3 Bcf/d of new supply must be added each year simply to maintain constant basin deliverability. In addition, the average rate added per well continued to decrease while the initial decline rate increased. During the decade of the 1990s, over 25 Bcf/d of new western Canadian gas deliverability was added, from over 42,000 new producing well events. Based on the year of pool discovery and the year that the area was first connected to the delivery system, there are four definable Exploration and Development strategies. Each of the four strategies (Exploration, Connection, Development and Renewal) contributed a significant amount of gas rate additions. What role will exploration and development strategies play in future gas supply? This paper illustrates the trends in gas supply additions over the last decade, including a view of the geographic distribution, as well as other attributes. There is also a comparison of the portfolios of E&D strategies that operators employed. A brief synopsis of the methodology followed to determine a consistent measurement of gas rate-additions is also presented. Careful analysis of the historical results has yielded useful insights for operators as they make their choices about their future activities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation SymposiumSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207