A New Exploration Strategy for Lower Paleozoic Petroleum Systems in the Witliston Basin (Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petroleum is produced from the Sauk (M. Cambrian-L. Ordovician) a1d lippeganoe (M._ Ordovician-Silurian) successions in-Williston Basin. The best potential reservoirs are found in Deadwood Fm. sandstones (U. CambrianL. Ordovician), Winnipeg Gp. sandstones 1M. Ordovician), Bighom Gp. carbonates (U. Ordovician-L. Silurian) and the Interlake Gp. carb6nateslSilurian). Large proven and produced reseryes occur in the United States, especially in basement-involved, long-livdd structures iuCh as Cedai Creek and Nesson anticlines. Efforts to extend this production into Canada 6ave led to conceptually important discoveries, but reserves and reservoir performance have irot matched those of American fields. Petroleum systems analysis indicates at least three petroleum systems in this interval. The most important is the Bighorn-sourced oil from kukersitic source rocks. Other petroleum_systems have sources in Winnifeg Gp. shales an? an as yet unlocated interval inferred to occur in the Deadwood Fm. The former produces oils iesem6fing those with source rocks.in the_Bighorn G_p., while the-latter produces oils.that resembl'e oils with sources in th6 Devonian succession, although they have distinctive stable isotopic compositions. Geophysics, organic maturity and apatite fission track thermochronology -_indicate- geogr_ aphic and temporal variitions in baiement heat fiux controlled by geodynamics. The primary effect of thermal history variations is significant petroleum generation during the Carboniferous and Permian. !,xploration success hinges_on-.the timing anld preservition of tra! formation relative to petroleum generation. Therefore, the recent strateg-y 9{ {rit_ling current struitural highs should be augmented by a search for ancient structural and stratigraphic traps, of which Cedar Creek Anticline is the best example.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".