MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119973446 · doi:10.1306/07202017327

Origin and charging histories of diagenetic traps in the Junggar Basin

2021· article· en· W3119973446 on OpenAlexaff
Jianguo Pan, Guodong Wang, Yongqiang Qu, Qi Wen, Yin Lu, Duonian Xu, Teng Tuanyu, Bin Wang, Kaijun Tan, Linjun Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDiagenesisStructural basinPaleontologyGeochemistryMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Oil and gas accumulations in the sandy conglomerate diagenetic traps that developed in the fan delta of the Triassic Baikouquan Formation of the Mahu sag, Junggar Basin, differ from stratigraphic accumulations controlled by sedimentary facies. This study uses conventional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry measurements, mineralogical and petrological data, fluid inclusion analyses, and geophysical inversion to confirm the trap type and accumulation processes. The results indicate that accumulations in the sandy conglomerate formed in distributary channels of the fan-delta front, with the boundary controlled by reservoir quality. In turn, reservoir quality was controlled by differential diagenesis caused by detrital-feldspar content, paleotemperature, and formation fluids, suggesting that the trap is a diagenetic trap. The diagenetic trap formed from secondary pores developed in the fan-delta front facies with seals forming through a combination of altered sandy beds and mudstone. The critical physical property of the reservoir, based on the ratio of its average capillary radius to the ratio of its seal, is a crucial parameter for describing diagenetic trap boundaries. Here, it effectively distinguishes between reservoirs at different burial depths. A good correlation exists between the formation of the diagenetic traps and hydrocarbon filling. Three hydrocarbon charging and two accumulation stages are identified. The diagenetic traps primarily formed in the Jurassic, and the last charging stage of highly mature oil charge occurred in the Early Cretaceous. Few studies have investigated the conglomerate diagenetic trap studied herein, so this study should improve the understanding of oil and gas traps.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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