MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131531476 · doi:10.1144/sp370.11

The Grosmont: the world's largest unconventional oil reservoir hosted in carbonate rocks

2012· article· en· W2131531476 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hans G. Machel, Mary Luz Borrero, Eugene A. Dembicki, Harald Huebscher, Luo Ping, Yi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityShell (Canada)Husky Energy (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCarbonateCarbonate rockGeochemistryPetrologyPetroleum engineeringSedimentary rockChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Upper Devonian Grosmont platform in Alberta, Canada, is the world's largest heavy oil reservoir hosted in carbonates, with 400–500 bbbl of initial oil in place at an average depth of about 250–400 m. Past pilot activity between 1975 and 1987, mainly with ‘huff and puff’ technology, had variable results and the reservoir was deemed uneconomical at the time. More advanced thermal recovery technologies, such as steam assisted gravity drive and electrical in-situ retorting, much higher world market prices for oil and certain political pressures have led to a flurry of activity in the Grosmont since 2006. To be successful, all these schemes require a solid geological, geophysical and petrophysical reservoir evaluation. Our study, which aims to aid in thermal recovery of this reservoir, shows that the current reservoir characteristics were created by a succession of five major factors and/or processes: sedimentary stratigraphy, dolomitization, polyphase and polygenetic fracturing, polyphase and polygenetic karstification, and biodegradation. Most of the present porosity and permeability is due to fracturing and karstification. The sedimentary stratigraphy of the Grosmont reservoir consists of six stacked carbonate units interbedded with marls and some evaporites. The latter two originally acted as aquitards during diagenesis but are breached or missing in parts of the area today. Dolomitization by density-driven reflux was the first pervasive diagenetic process. Most dolostones are fine-crystalline and tight, however, and the only notable porosity caused by and/or related to dolomitization is scattered molds and vugs. A dense fracture network was created in three or four phases. Most fractures probably originated from collapse following subsurface salt dissolution and/or from Laramide tectonics far to the west, whereby pulsed crustal loading in the fold-and-thrust belt created a dynamic forebulge in the Grosmont region via multiple pulses of basin-wide crustal flexing, each followed by relaxation. The fracture network probably was reactivated and/or expanded by glacial loading and post-glacial isostatic rebound in the Pleistocene and Holocene, respectively. The region experienced three or four prolonged periods of epigene (top-down) karstification, although there is tangible evidence for only two of them in the Grosmont platform. The first of these episodes was a ‘warm epigene karstification’ during the Jurassic–Cretaceous, and the second was/is a ‘cold epigene karstification’ that started sometime in the Cenozoic and is continuing to this day. In addition, there is circumstantial evidence for hypogene (bottom-up) ‘karstification’ (=dissolution) throughout much of the geological history of the Grosmont since the Late Devonian, with two possible maxima around the time of hydrocarbon emplacement, that is Early–Middle Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic, respectively. Epigene karstification was accompanied and/or followed by extensive biodegradation. Present bitumen in-situ viscosities are >1 million cP and API gravities range from 5 to 9°. Taken together, these conditions pose considerable challenges for any type of thermal recovery scheme.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207