MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953069836 · doi:10.3133/cir1450

Statistics of petroleum exploration in the world outside the United States and Canada through 2015

2019· article· en· W2953069836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emil D. Attanasi, Philip A. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueU.S. Geological Survey circular/U.S. Geological Survey Circular · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)DrillingSubmarine pipelinePetroleumFossil fuelGeographyGeological surveyPetroleum industryPetroleum explorationGeologyPaleontologyEngineeringPolitical scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First posted June 17, 2019 For additional information, contact: Director, Eastern Energy Resources Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyMail Stop 95612201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA 20192 The world’s future oil and gas supplies depend on existing reserves and the additions to those reserves that may result, in part, from ongoing exploration and new discoveries. This Circular summarizes available oil and gas exploration data for the world outside the United States and Canada (the study area) through 2015. It updates U.S. Geological Survey Circulars 981, 1096, and 1288 (by D.H. Root, E.D. Attanasi, and R.L. Turner, 1987; E.D. Attanasi and D.H. Root, 1993; and E.D. Attanasi, P.A. Freeman, and J.A. Glovier, 2007). The exploration measures focus on the search for undiscovered conventional oil and gas accumulations.The goal of this compilation, presentation, and analysis of exploration and discovery data is to identify, at the reconnaissance level, the areas explored for oil and gas and to characterize their degree of exploration maturity. Maps and graphs provide a visual summary of the exploration maturity of an area. The maps include both land and offshore areas. The maps show delineated prospective areas, which are the industry-defined areas of interest in the search for undiscovered conventional oil and gas accumulations. The maps also show explored areas, which are areas where the density of exploration and development drilling rules out new discoveries of large conventional petroleum accumulations.Whereas the maps show the static state of oil and gas exploration, the dynamic measures of exploration progress are characterized graphically. The graphs show the growth in the delineated prospective and explored areas as a function of wildcat drilling. The relation between the expansion of the delineated prospective area and the rate of wildcat drilling is determined by the siting of the wildcat wells. Additional graphs show the magnitude of discoveries tied to specific delineated prospective areas. These graphs provide a way to evaluate the quality, in terms of discovered oil and gas, of areas identified by the dates when each area became prospective.From 2006 through 2015, the delineated prospective area within the study area expanded at a rate of about 48,100 square miles per year. This is slightly above the expansion rate of 46,200 square miles per year from 1996 through 2005. From 2006 through 2015, the explored area expanded at a rate of about 12,900 square miles per year, which is somewhat greater than the rate of 11,300 square miles per year for the period from 1996 through 2005. The delineated prospective area established by 1970 accounts for 35 percent of the delineated prospective area established through 2015 but contains 70 percent of the oil and 52 percent of the natural gas discovered through 2015. From 2006 through 2015, offshore discoveries accounted for 71 percent of the oil and 78 percent of the gas discovered in the study area and 40 percent of the offshore wildcat wells were drilled in deep offshore areas (deeper than 200 meters water depth).The delineated prospective area and explored area calculated with oil and gas wells and fields at depths of at least 10,000 feet are less than half of the respective areas calculated with all oil and gas wells and fields. The discovery histories of most regions indicate that average discovery sizes are generally larger in deeper geologic horizons. To correctly interpret the exploration maturity of a deep horizon, drilling and discovery data must be considered in the context of the geology of the area. Such analyses should be prepared at the level of the petroleum basin or subbasin.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueU.S. Geological Survey circular/U.S. Geological Survey CircularSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207