MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093137920 · doi:10.2118/169861-ms

Disclosures of Resources Other Than Reserves Under Canadian Guidelines

2014· article· en· W2093137920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Etherington, J. L. Chipperfield, D. C. Elliott, Phillip Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The importance of improved guidance for the estimation and classification of "Resources other than Reserves" (abbreviated herein as ROTR) has recently been driven by the evolution of the petroleum industry away from maturing conventional accumulations towards unconventional accumulations such as petroleum in ultra-low permeability reservoirs (including shales) and heavy oil/bitumen resources. Commonly these unconventional opportunities involve newer, capital intensive technologies to exploit areally extensive deposits; accordingly, early-stage estimates of in-place petroleum quantities and potentially recoverable volumes may be very large, creating new and critical challenges to communicating clear and consistent information, including the associated uncertainties, relating to resource opportunities. To date, evaluators involved in estimation and reporting of ROTR have had to rely on only limited guidance. Under Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument (NI) 51–101 Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities, companies are obligated to disclose Proved and Probable Reserves but have the option to additionally disclose Possible Reserves, Contingent Resources and Prospective Resources. NI 51–101 references technical guidelines contained in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook (COGEH) maintained by the Canadian Chapter of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE). Disclosure of ROTR estimates in Canada has increased substantially in recent years and based on reviews of many filings, is often unclear, inconsistent or potentially misleading. A SPEE Calgary committee has recently proposed additional guidance to promote and improve consistency in the estimation of ROTR for business operations and public disclosure. It is intended to augment other guidelines in COGEH Volumes 1 to 3. Issues addressed with respect to estimation, classification and reporting of ROTR include the following: Clarification of definitions and principles pertaining to petroleum accumulations, particularly in relation to continuous deposits, Clarification of definitions and principles pertaining to recovery projects and technologies, Exploration and technical and commercial risks, Aggregation of resource estimates. Guidance on reporting the results of ROTR evaluations Reporting of the results of a resource evaluation under the recommended revised guidelines should provide information for both internal management and external investors sufficient to make informed investment decisions. The revised definitions and classification guidance may be equally applicable in future updates of the Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation SymposiumSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207