MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567222737 · doi:10.4236/ijg.2016.712099

Sedimentology and Ichnology of Upper Montney Formation Tight Gas Reservoir, Northeastern British Columbia, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2016· article· en· W2567222737 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Edwin I. Egbobawaye

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geosciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSiltstoneGeologyIchnofaciesSedimentary depositional environmentGeochemistrySedimentologyPaleontologySedimentary rockMaturity (psychological)Tight gasFaciesGeomorphologyStructural basinHydraulic fracturing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several decades of conventional oil and gas production in Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) have resulted in maturity of the basin, and attention is shifting to alternative hydrocarbon reservoir system, such as tight gas reservoir of the Montney Formation, which consists of siltstone with subordinate interlaminated very fine-grained sandstone. The Montney Formation resource play is one of Canada’s prime unconventional hydrocarbon reservoir, with reserve estimate in British Columbia (Natural Gas reserve = 271 TCF), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG = 12,647 million barrels), and oil reserve (29 million barrels). Based on sedimentological and ichnological criteria, five lithofacies associations were identified in the study interval: Lithofacies F-1 (organic rich, wavy to parallel laminated, black colored siltstone); Lithofacies F-2 (very fine-grained sandstone interbedded with siltstone); Lithofacies F-3A (bioturbated silty-sandstone attributed to the Skolithos ichnofacies); Lithofacies F-3B (bioturbated siltstone attributed to Cruziana ichnofacies); Lithofacies F-4 (dolomitic, very fine-grained sandstone); and Lithofacies F-5 (massive siltstone). The depositional environments interpreted for the Montney Formation in the study area are lower shoreface through proximal offshore to distal offshore settings. Rock-Eval data (hydrogen Index and Oxygen Index) shows that Montney sediments contains mostly gas prone Type III/IV with subordinate Type II kerogen, TOC ranges from 0.39 - 3.54 wt% with a rare spike of 10.9 wt% TOC along the Montney/Doig boundary. Vitrinite reflectance data and Tmax show that thermal maturity of the Montney Formation is in the realm of “peak gas” generation window. Despite the economic significance of the Montney unconventional “resource-play”, however, the location and predictability of the best reservoir interval remain conjectural in part because the lithologic variability of the optimum reservoir lithologies has not been adequately characterized. This study presents lithofacies and ichnofacies analyses of the Montney Formation coupled with Rock-Eval geochemistry to interpret the sedimentology, ichnology, and reservoir potential of the Montney Formation tight gas reservoir in Fort St. John study area (T86N, R23W and T74N, R13W), northeastern British Columbia, western Canada.

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 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 score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeosciencesSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207