MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Counter point bar deposits: lithofacies and reservoir significance in the meandering modern Peace River and ancient McMurray Formation, Alberta, Canada

2009· article· en· W2162494062 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersUniversity at BuffaloParks Canada
KeywordsPoint barGeologyFluvialSiltPaleontologyGeomorphologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Counter point bar deposits in the meandering Peace River, North‐central Alberta, Wood Buffalo National Park, are distinct from point bar deposits in terms of morphology, lithofacies and reservoir potential for fluids. Previously referred to as the distal‐most parts of point bars, point bar tails and concave bank‐bench deposits, counter point bar deposits have concave morphological scroll patterns rather than convex as with point bars. The Peace is a large river (bankfull discharge 11 700 m 3 sec −1 , width 375 to 700 m, depth 15 m, gradient 0·00004 or 4 cm km −1 ) in which counter point bar deposits are dominated by silt (80% to 90%), which contrasts with sand‐dominant (90% to 100%) point bar deposits. Beginning at the meander inflection (transition from convex to concave), counter point bar deposit stratigraphy thickens as a wedge‐like architecture in the distal direction until the deposit is nearly as thick as the point bar deposits. The low permeability silt‐dominant lithofacies in counter point bar deposits will limit reservoir extent and movement of fluids in both modern and ancient subsurface fluvial deposits. In the exploration and extraction of bitumen and heavy oil in subsurface fluvial rocks, identification and mapping of reservoir potential of point bar deposits and counter point bar deposits is now possible in the fluvial‐dominated tidal estuarine Lower Cretaceous Middle McMurray Formation, North‐east Alberta. Recent geophysical advances have facilitated imaging of some ancient buried point bar deposits and counter point bar deposits which, on the basis of morphological shape of sedimentary bodies observed from seismic amplitude, can be interpreted and mapped as depositional elements or blocks that contain associated sandstone or siltstone dominant lithofacies, respectively. As counter point bar deposits exhibit poor permeability and thus limit reservoir potential for water, natural gas, light crude, heavy oil and bitumen, counter point bar deposits should be avoided in resource developments. Geophysical imaging, interpretation and mapping of point bar deposit and counter point bar deposit elements provide new opportunities to improve recovery of bitumen and heavy oil and reduce development costs in subsurface cyclic steam stimulation and steam‐assisted gravity drainage projects by not drilling into counter point bar deposits.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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