Diagenesis, Burial history, and Reservoir Characterization of the Scollard sequence sandstones in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed laboratory study of sandstone samples from outcrops and conventional core samples from the Maastrichtian-Paleocene Scollard-age fluvial strata in the Western Canada foredeep was undertaken to investigate the reservoir characteristics, burial depth history, and sandstone diagenesis. The sandstones are predominantly litharenites and sublitharenites, which accumulated in a variety of fluvial environments. The porosity of the sandstones is both syn-depositional and diagenetic in origin. The potential of a sandstone to serve as a reservoir for producible hydrocarbons is strongly related to the sandstone’s diagenetic history. Detailed study of the distribution of authigenic minerals of the Scollard sequence suggests that the diversities in the pattern distribution of authigenic clay minerals in the regions are not random but they coincide with the burial depth of these strata and has a well-defined relation to the sequence stratigraphic framework The general absence of dickite, coupled with limited conversion of smectite into illite in the Scollard sandstones, suggests crystallization at a depth less than 1.5 km. In contrast, the occurrence of blocky dickite, fibrous illite and chlorite in the Coalspur and Willow Creek sandstones, coupled with albitized feldspars and quartz cement, suggests that sandstones there underwent a maximum burial depth greater than 3 km. It has been observed that kaolin mineral content increases in sandstones lying below subaerial unconformities, which mark the most significant stratigraphic hiatuses and hence the sequence boundaries in fully fluvial successions. This study demonstrates the effects of burial depth and paleoclimate on pore-water chemistry, which in turn, influenced the mineralogy and the distributions of authigenic minerals in the sandstones. The δ13C and δ18O compositions of pedogenic carbonate nodules from the Willow Creek Formation associated with the red shale host sediments have been used as a paleoclimate and paleoenvironmental proxy. The isotopic composition of nodules suggests that these formed during drier conditions when C3 vegetation prevailed at the site. The predominance of smectite and illite in fines and the poor floral content point to a low seasonal rainfall in a semi-arid climatic environment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".