Stratigraphic controls on production from a basin-centered gas system: Lower Cretaceous Cadotte Member, Deep Basin, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we examine the controls on gas production from Cretaceous clastic strand-plain deposits in an area (the Deep Basin of Alberta) that was instrumental in the development of the basin-centered gas concept. By integrating core, wireline logs, three-dimensional seismic data, petrophysical measurements, pressure, and production data, we show that the best gas production comes from stratigraphic sweet spots consisting of chert-rich shoreface and beachface deposits that alternate between tight quartzose sandstone. The physical properties of the chert-rich and quartzose units are sufficiently different that they can be distinguished seismically. Seismic modeling and observations show that high-amplitude areas correspond to porous (and productive) chert-rich shoreface and beachface deposits. A map of seismic amplitudes for the Cadotte Member shows narrow (∼0.5 km [0.3 mi] width), curvilinear, high-amplitude anomalies (corresponding to cherty shoreface and beachface deposits) that are parallel to depositional strike (east-northeast–west-southwest) and correlate precisely with production trends. Wells drilled outside the high-amplitude anomalies do not have sufficient permeability to produce gas at economic rates. The shore-parallel stratigraphic sweet spots are locally compartmentalized by shale-filled channels that cut at high angles through the strand plain. Like other Cretaceous units in this area, the Cadotte Member is wet structurally updip from gas-charged rocks. The contact between these two phases traversing through our study area and its location is controlled by the interplay of regional structural dip and depositional processes that controlled the lithology and stratigraphic architecture of the rocks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".