MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950670460

A Comparative Study of Silicified Rock Reservoir in Shunnan 4 well of Tarim Basin with Hydrothermal Chert Reservoir of Parkland Gas Field in Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2018· dissertation· en· W2950670460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hang Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueoURspace (University of Regina) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTarim basinStructural basinGeologySedimentary rockGeochemistryHydrothermal circulationGeomorphologyNatural gas fieldPaleontologyNatural gasEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The silicified limestone reservoirs in the Yingshan Formation of Middle Ordovician, discovered from SN4 well in 2013, have made a high yield in Shunnan area which is located in the center of Tarim Basin, northwest China. Comparing to previous work about the silicificaition, much more detailed petrographic descriptions have been carried out in this study. The most important diagenetic features to the silicification are identified including replacement quartz, quartz cement (characterized by 4 textures: equant quartz, bladed quartz, overgrowth and quartz cement in later fractures) and three types of calcite cement (CC1-CC3). Geochemical analysis including Si-O isotope analysis on quartz and C-O isotope analysis on calcite cement are processed, together with fluid inclusion studies on both quartz and calcite cement. Back to the discovery of this unique type of reservoir worldwide, the only comparable one is the hydrothermal chert reservoir interbedded among dolomite and dolomitic mudstone in the Wabamun Group of Upper Devonian, discovered in 1956 in Parkland, NW Western Canada sedimentary basin (WCSB). Due to limited reference in this chert reservoir, detailed work including core and thin section observations have been processed for further understanding. Two types of replacement dolomite and two types of dolomite cement occurring in Parkland comprise fine crystalline dolomite (RD1), medium-coarse crystalline dolomite (RD2), medium-coarse crystalline dolomite cement (CD1) and saddle dolomite cement (CD2), respectively. The chert mainly replaced the original host rock or filled in the fractures/dissolution vugs after the saddle dolomite cement. A third type of silica identified in this study is the euhedral quartz cement. Coreii based geochemical exploration has been put forward including C-O and Sr-O isotope analysis (mainly on RD1, RD2, CD1, CD2 and calcite cement). Fluid inclusion analysis on the saddle dolomite and euhedral quartz cement has also been processed. Based on the geological setting, the Upper Devonian reservoirs in Parkland show many similarities to those of Ordovician in SN4 well, including original limestone framework and the structural controlled fault systems. The differences mainly display as a pervasive dolomitization before chertification in Parkland, while in the silicified intervals of SN4 well, the dolomite mainly represents as the cement along with stylolites. The textures of the silica which contribute to the reservoir quality in both areas are also dramatically different. Chertification in Parkland formed from Tournaisian to late Viséan at a depth around 3200 m, while in SN4 well, the silicification depth was rather deeper reaching 6600 m and estimated began in the Late Devonian. The silicified reservoirs in both areas have made breakthroughs in the gas production. A better understanding of the nature and the forming mechanism of these silicified carbonate reservoirs is of critical importance to guide further exploration in both of the areas, which could also be applied in other areas with similar background setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueoURspace (University of Regina)Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207