Petrophysical characteristics of post-2000 significant conventional discovery wells in the Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs an integrated approach to derive reservoir parameters and provides an overview of petrophysical characteristics for post-2000 conventional discovered oil and gas accumulations in the Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin. The evaluated wells include Tuk M-18, Kurk M-15, Paktoa C-60, Olivier H-01, Langley E-07 and K-30 (Langley field), Ellice I-48 and J-27 (Ellice field), Umiak N-05 and N-16 (Umiak field). Petrophysical models are developed for the evaluation of reservoir properties, including lithology, porosity, permeability and water saturation using core-calibrated log data. Potential oil and gas zones are identified using specified porosity and water saturation cut-off values (>10% porosity, <45% Sw). Most of the log-identified petroleum zones in the ten wells occur primarily in the Paleogene Taglu and Aklak sequences in sandstone reservoirs of good porosity and permeability, or in shaly sandstone and siltstone reservoirs with fair to good porosity and permeability. However, major identified gas zones in the Tuk gas field occur in sandstone of the Lower Cretaceous Kamik Formation. Good quality gas zones in the Tuk M-18 well occur in fine to mediumgrained sandstone with good porosity (21% on average), excellent permeability (mainly between 10 and 2000 mD), and high gas saturation (90% on average), and with restricted flow test rates up to 860,000 cubic meter of natural gas per day. In the Paktoa C-60 well, the only significant discovery drilled in the Beaufort Sea since 1990, an oil zone is identified in unconsolidated fine to coarse-grained sandstone of the Taglu Sequence. This zone has good reservoir properties with an average porosity of 25% and maximum permeability of 10 to 100 mD. This log interpretation is consistent with drill stem tests that recovered oil from this interval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".