MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164929810

Review of Oil Families and Their Petroleum Systems of the Williston Basin

2013· article· en· W2164929810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul G. Lillis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mountain Geologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianKerogenSource rockGeologyPetroleumOrdovicianPetroleum geochemistryPennsylvanianPaleozoicStructural basinCanada BasinAPI gravityPaleontologyPetroleum reservoirBasin modellingGeochemistryPetroleum engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The petroleum system concept was first applied in 1974 (Dow/Williams) to identify three oil systems in the Williston Basin, and recent studies have expanded the number to at least nine. This paper reviews the petroleum geochemistry, oil-oil, and oil-source correlations of the oil systems of the Williston Basin, providing a new perspective and some new findings. Petroleum systems with a known source (documented oil-source correlation) include the Red River (Ordovician), Winnipegosis (Devonian), Bakken (Devonian-Mississippian), Madison (Mississippian), and Tyler (Pennsylvanian) systems. Petroleum systems with an identified source rock but no documented oil-source correlation are considered hypothetical and include the Winnipeg (Ordovician), Duperow (Devonian), and Birdbear (Devonian). The Deadwood (Cambrian-Ordovician) petroleum system is speculative because a good oil-prone source rock has not been identified. The stratigraphic distribution of the oil families from each system is generally limited to the same formation from which they were sourced due to efficient seals and a paucity of vertical migration pathways, but some notable exceptions do occur. Oil bulk properties such as API gravity, sulfur content, and pour point are much underutilized in the recent geochemical literature and are found to be useful here in differentiating oil families. The Red River petroleum system has two oil families that can be differentiated based on pour point. The oils in the Madison petroleum system can be divided into two families based on API gravity-sulfur content relationships, with one family derived from Type II-S kerogen and the other family derived from Type II kerogen with medium sulfur content. The Tyler petroleum system of the Williston Basin may be distinguished from the Heath-Tyler petroleum system in central Montana based on differences in geology and petroleum geochemistry, with Tyler petroleum system oils having a higher pour point and lower sulfur content.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mountain GeologistSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207