Burial history and source rocks characteristics of the montney formation, Alberta basin, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 300 samples from the Montney Formations in the Alberta basin, offshore, Canada have been analysed with locations in various parts of the Alberta basin.These samples were mainly analyzed from two wells (well M28 & M22) to assess the organic quality, quantity as well as thermal maturation by Tmax versus PI (Production Index) from Rock-Eval Pyrolysis and Vitrinite Reflectance data.Two well locations (301 & 306) have been chosen for calibrating burial history and thermal maturation models in the Alberta basin because of their measured bottom hole temperature data which was assumed to be taken from the nearby well.These well locations also have measured Vitrinite Reflectance data which was taken directly from coal-bearing Mannville Group.The Triassic Montney Formation silty shale and shale, was deposited within an anoxic depositional environments and shows a wide variability of organic oil and gas prone Type II, II-III and III source rocks.M22 samples display excellent organic matter quantity (TOC up to 5.80%), and Type II and Type III kerogens, which are favourable for hydrocarbon generation.The high TOC values generally indicate that the condition during the deposition of sediments was favourable for organic matter production and preservation.The genetic potential (GP) and hydrogen Index (HI) is above the minimum values required for a potential source rock, suggesting that the sediments have gas and oil generating potential.However, in M22, only few samples met the requirements for the organic matter quantity, quality, and thermal maturity in order to be called source rocks.This could be because the samples from M28 were collected from outcrops which are easily affected by weathering.This significantly changed the TOC values and affected thermal maturation and Rock-eval Pyrolysis parameters.The burial history plots shows that location (306 and 301) experienced a period of nondeposition and/or erosion that began between latest Devonian-earliest Carboniferous.The second major erosional event was caused by the Late Cretaceous regional uplift that influenced petroleum generation, migration, and accumulation.The Vitrinite Reflectance values have been measured for all stratigraphic units in the Alberta basin.The immature phase for oil and gas generation is (< 0.54%), early mature (0.54-0.70%) mid mature (0.70-1.00%), late mature (1.00-1.30%)wet gas (1.30-2.00%)and dry gas generation (2.00-2.60%).The maturity history suggests that the deepest parts of the assigned source rock units entered the hydrocarbon generation already during the Triassic.The maturity increased during the upper Jurassic and reached a peak during Early Cretaceous.The burial history plots for well 301 location indicates that the timing for the start of oil generation occurred within a relatively narrow range, around 139 Ma.The generation of gas from the cracking of Woodbend group oil started from the Mid-Cretaceous to Late Cretaceous.In well 306 location, the generation of gas from the cracking of Wabamun oil began at about 80 Ma.However, the source interval matured much earlier than at well 301 location.Early oil generation began as early as 205 Ma (Upper Triassic), when burial depth was just 1703 m.The main phase of oil generation occurred 127 Ma later when the basin was buried at 1712 m.http://etd.uwc.ac.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".