MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112188857 · doi:10.1306/13371579st640398

Comparison of Oil Generation Kinetics Derived from Hydrous Pyrolysis and Rock-eval in Four-dimensional Models of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin and its Northern Alberta Oil Sands

2013· book-chapter· en· W2112188857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debra K. Higley, Michael D. Lewan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsGeologyAsphaltResource (disambiguation)Structural basinGeochemistrySedimentary rockPetroleumSource rockSteam-assisted gravity drainageUnconventional oilMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringArchaeologyGeomorphologyOil shalePaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four-dimensional petroleum system models within the Western Canada sedimentary basin were constructed using hydrous pyrolysis (HP) and Rock-Eval (RE) kinetic parameters for six of the major oil-prone source rocks in the basin. These source rocks include the Devonian Duvernay Member of the Woodbend Group; Devonian-Mississippian Exshaw Formation; Triassic Doig Formation; Gordondale Member; Poker Chip A shale, both of the Jurassic Fernie Group; and Ostracod Zone of the Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group. The Mannville Group coals also contributed oil to the oil sands (Higley et al., 2009) but are excluded herein because HP kinetics were used for both models with identical results. The locations of oil migration flowpaths are identical for the HP and RE models, with the exception of an earlier onset of generation and migration shown with the HP model. Both models show that the oil sands are located at focal points of the petroleum migration pathways. The principal differences between the models are the onset and extent of oil generation from the Jurassic Fernie source rocks (Gordondale Member and Poker Chip A shale) at about 85 Ma with the HP model and 65 Ma with the RE model. Earlier oil generation in the HP model is caused by the high sulfur content of the type IIS kerogen in the Jurassic source rocks. The influence of organic sulfur is accounted for in the HP kinetic parameters, but not the RE kinetic parameters. The cumulative volume of oil generated from the source rocks is 678 billion m 3for the HP model and 444 billion m 3for the RE model, or 65% of the HP volume. This difference is attributed to early generation from type IIS kerogen that resulted in much larger volumes of thermally mature source rocks for the Jurassic Fernie Group and consequently larger volumes of generated oil. The Gordondale Member in the HP model generated more than 550 times the volume of oil generated by the Gordondale Member in the RE model. The timing and generated volumes are comparable in the RE and HP models for source rocks that contain normal levels of organic sulfur (type II kerogen). The Duvernay is an exception because of the very low sulfur content of its type II kerogen. The result is higher HP kinetic than RE kinetic parameters, with associated greater thermal maturities required for HP than for RE oil generation. Consequently, there is less mature Duvernay source rock in the HP model than the RE model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooksSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207