DEEP BASIN GAS: A NEW EXPLORATION PARADIGM IN THE NAPPAMERRI TROUGH, COOPER BASIN, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep basin hydrocarbon accumulations have been widely recognised in North America and include the giant fields of Elmworth and Hoadley in the Western Canadian Basin. Deep basin accumulations are unconventional, being located downdip of water-saturated rocks, with no obvious impermeable barrier separating them. Gas accumulations in the Nappamerri Trough, Cooper Basin, exhibit several characteristics consistent with North American deep basin accumulations. Log evaluation suggests thick gas columns and tests have recovered only gas and no water. The resistivity of the entire rock section exceeds 20 Om over large intervals, and, as in known deep basin accumulations, the entire rock section may contain gas. Gas in the Nappamerri Trough is located within overpressured compartments which witness the hydraulic isolation necessary for gas saturation outside conventional closure. Furthermore, the Nappamerri Trough, like known deep basin accumulations, has extensive, coal-rich source rocks capable of generating enormous hydrocarbon volumes. The above evidence for a deep basin-type gas accumulation in the Nappamerri Trough is necessarily circumstantial, and the existence of a deep gas accumulation can only be proven unequivocally by drilling wells outside conventional closure. Exploration for deep basin-type accumulations should focus on depositional-structural-diagenetic sweet spots (DSDS), irrespective of conventional closure. This is of particular significance for a potential Nappamerri Trough deep basin accumulation because depositional models suggest that the best net/gross may be in structural lows, inherited from syndepositional lows, that host stacked channel sands within channel belt systems. Limiting exploration to conventionally-trapped gas may preclude intersection with such sweet spots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".