MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981942244 · doi:10.4095/226231

Petroleum play data for Upper Devonian to Carboniferous siliciclastics (Imperial and Tuttle formations), Mackenzie corridor

2008· report· en· W2981942244 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leanne J. Pyle, T. L. Allen, Tiffani Fraser, W Zantvoort

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboniferousDevonianGeologyPaleontologyPetroleum explorationPaleozoicPetroleum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Petroleum resource assessment of Mackenzie Corridor is underway as part of the Geological Survey of Canada's "Secure Canadian Energy Supply" program. The Mackenzie Corridor Project examines hydrocarbon potential in subsurface regions east and west of the proposed route of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline for this part of the northern Canadian mainland sedimentary basin. Two conceptual plays of interest are the Upper Devonian Imperial Formation clastics and the Upper Devonian-Lower Carboniferous Tuttle Formation clastics. This succession occurs in the Interior Plains exploration region and northern foreland and represents a southwestward progradational clastic wedge succession deposited in the foreland of the Arctic Ellesmerian Orogeny. Although there have been no discoveries in the regions assessed herein, indications of petroleum systems occur such as hints of gas in drill stem tests in the Imperial Formation and minor gas detected in the Tuttle Formation. Potential source rocks, based on analysis of total organic carbon (%TOC), include Road River Group (0.06 to 3.67 % TOC in subsurface and 1.58 to 2.28 %TOC in surface samples), Canol Formation (0.01 to 27.14 %TOC in subsurface and 0.2 to 8.51 %TOC in surface samples), Imperial Formation (range from 0.01 to 7.49 %TOC in subsurface and 0.27 to 7.03 %TOC in surface samples), Tuttle Formation (0.48 to 5.42 %TOC in subsurface and 0.28 to 40.25 %TOC in surface samples), Ford Lake Shale/"Cf" unit (0.01 to 2.77 %TOC in subsurface and 0.03-12.17%TOC in surface samples), and Cretaceous formations (range from 0.01 to 42.4 %TOC in subsurface samples). Potential reservoir horizons in the Imperial Formation include sandier units with intergranular porosity (range from 0.5% to 24.7%) and permeability generally less than 0.1 mD. Tuttle Formation sandstone and conglomerate units have intergranular and intragranular porosity (range from 1.5 to 25.6%) and permeability ranges between 0 and 127 mD. Reservoir seals include intraformational shale and overlying shale. Both stratigraphic and structural traps are possible for each play, including channelized sandstone or lateral pinch-outs of sandstone beds, interfingering relationships of the Imperial and Tuttle formations, and minor folds and faults particularly in the zone parallel to the Richardson Mountains. Exploration risks include: preservational risk from the sub-Cretaceous unconformity, shallowness of reservoirs, quality and thickness of reservoirs, and timing of hydrocarbon generation in relationship to trap formation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207