MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029710940 · doi:10.1306/12191917401

A new method for assessing tight oil, with application to the Lucaogou Formation in the Jimusaer depression, Junggar Basin, China

2020· article· en· W3029710940 on OpenAlexaff
Junqing Chen, Xiongqi Pang, Xulong Wang, Yingxun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-CanadaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyChinaStructural basinGeochemistryDepression (economics)PaleontologyArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study proposes a new method for estimating tight oil resources in a closed petroleum system using an alternative mass balance model. The proposed approach primarily derives resource estimates based on a large volume of Rock-Eval pyrolysis data. In addition to leveraging the cost-effective, straightforward, and rapid process, the proposed method has the flexibility to assess the potential of different types of resources, including organic-rich tight (shale) oil and organic-lean tight oil. The method is validated by assessing the oil resource potential of the middle Permian Lucaogou Formation (P2l) in the Jimusaer depression, Junggar Basin, China. Results indicate that the P2l contains 1.62 × 109 t (11.91 × 109 bbl) of organic-rich and 2.88 × 109 t (21.17 × 109 bbl) of organic-lean tight oil. Of the organic-rich tight oil, 21% comprises free oil resources, amounting to 0.343 × 109 t (2.521 × 109 bbl). The proposed approach deals sufficiently with the different resources in a petroleum system well and provides a useful tool for estimating the resource potential of an unconventional play.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207