Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia’s oil shale deposits in Central Queensland represent an immense potential source of high quality hydrocarbons, with an estimated 30 billion barrels of insitu oil. Using new production technology, the low sulphur oil products produced from these oil shale deposits could significantly enhance Australia’s options in meeting future demands for cleaner transport fuels to improve air quality and in reducing dependence on oil imports. As such, the Stuart Oil Shale Project at Gladstone in Queensland is one of the most significant new developments in the Australasian oil and gas industry. The Stuart Project is a joint venture between Australian companies Southern Pacific Petroleum NL and Central Pacific Minerals NL (SPP/CPM), and Canada’s Suncor Energy Inc (Suncor). Construction of the $285 million Stuart Stage 1 technology demonstration plant was completed in 1999 and commissioning and production testing of this 4,500 b/d (715 m3/d) plant by Suncor, the project operator, has progressed throughout 2000. The Stuart Project incorporates the Alberta-Taciuk Processor (ATP), a new generation of oil shale retorting technology which was chosen following a A$150 million R&D program in the 1980s. Upon technical and operational success in Stage 1, the expected next step involves scaling up the ATP in Stage 2 to a commercial sized module producing about 15,000 b/d (2,350 m3/d). This could lead to a commercial scale operation at Stuart of at least 85,000 b/d (13,500 m3/d) within the decade. Success at Stuart creates a new production development paradigm for oil shale. This will have important implications for Australia in terms of job creation and economic activity, as well as providing a new source of indigenous oil supply to deliver clean transportation fuels for Australia’s future.
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".