Subtle oil fields along the Western Flank of the Cooper/Eromanga petroleum system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil production from Cooper/Eromanga started in 1978, peaked in the 1980s and began a steady decline. Oil production from the Western Flank commenced in 2002 and has steadily increased. In the year until July 2014, a total of 8.6 million BBL of oil was produced from 16 active fields along the Western Flank, bringing the cumulative total to 24 million BBL. Western Flank oil has underpinned a tenfold growth in market capitalisation in four listed Australian companies: Beach Energy, Drillsearch Ltd, Senex Energy and Cooper Energy. Two sandstone plays dominate the Western Flank petroleum geology: the Namur Sandstone low-relief structural play and the mid-Birkhead stratigraphic play. The use of 3D seismic has improved the definition of both plays, increased exploration success and optimised field appraisal and development drilling. Success rates have improved despite most Namur structural closures being close to the resolution margin for depth conversions (less than 8 m). Seismic attribute mapping is being refined in the more difficult search for mid-Birkhead stratigraphic traps with recent exploration discoveries indicating improved success. Reservoir properties in the Namur are excellent with multi-Darcy permeability, unlimited aquifer strength, low gas/oil ratio (GOR) and low residual oil saturation. This combination leads to an oil recovery factor greater than 75%. Initial free-flow production rates commonly exceed 6,000 BBL per a day. The mid-Birkhead reservoir is also of high quality but the lack of a strong aquifer drive reduces primary recovery. New and re-processed 3D seismic and water-flood projects are expected to drive further discoveries, reserve and production growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".