Petroleum Source-Rock Evaluation and Hydrocarbon Potential in Montney Formation Unconventional Reservoir, Northeastern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Source-rock characteristics of Lower Triassic Montney Formation presented in this study shows the total organic carbon (TOC) richness, thermal maturity, hydrocarbon generation, geographical distribution of TOC and thermal maturity (Tmax) in Fort St. John study area (T86N, R23W and T74N, R13W) and its environs in northeastern British Columbia, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). TOC richness in Montney Formation within the study area is grouped into three categories: low TOC ( 3.5 wt%), and high TOC (>3.5 wt% %). Thermal maturity of the Montney Formation source-rock indicates that >90% of the analyzed samples are thermally mature, and mainly within gas generating window (wet gas, condensate gas, and dry gas), and comprises mixed Type II/III (oil/gas prone kerogen), and Type IV kerogen (gas prone). Analyses of Rock-Eval parameters (TOC, S2, Tmax, HI, OI and PI) obtained from 81 samples in 11 wells that penetrated the Montney Formation in the subsurface of northeastern British Columbia were used to map source rock quality across the study area. Based on total organic carbon (TOC) content mapping, geographical distribution of thermal maturity (Tmax) data mapping, including evaluation and interpretation of Rock-Eval parameters in the study area, the Montney Formation kerogen is indicative of a pervasively matured petroleum system in the study area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".