MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181319533 · doi:10.17632/8ngkgz69zb.2

Data Mining and Unsupervised Machine Learning in Canadian In Situ Oil Sands Database for Knowledge Discovery and Carbon Cost Analysis

2020· article· en· W3181319533 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Minxing Si

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge extractionComputer scienceData miningDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta’s oil sands (bitumen) extraction critically affects Canada’s ability to meet its commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement. However, few studies have published the actual operation data for extraction operations (schemes), especially fuel consumption data. In this study, we applied data mining techniques to Petrinex – a publicly available data warehouse for the oil and gas industry in Canada and extracted actual operating data for 20 schemes from over 35 million monthly records for the period of 2015 to 2019. The average of fuel gas (mainly natural gas) use was 0.29 103m3/m3 bitumen. The schemes with Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) used 0.27 103m3 fuel to produce 1 m3 bitumen. The schemes with Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) used 0.44 103m3 fuel to produce 1 m3 bitumen. The weighted average of emission intensity (EI) was 0.44 t CO2e/m3 undiluted bitumen (70 kg CO2e/bbl). The weighted average EI for SAGD was 0.39 t CO2e/m3 (62 kg CO2e/bbl), and the weighted average EI for CSS was 0.65 t CO2e/m3 (103 kg CO2e/bbl). We also used two unsupervised machine learning methods for knowledge discovery: clustering and association rule. The clustering implied that the CSS method was less efficient than the SAGD recovery method based on energy use and steam to oil ratio (SOR). The clustering also indicated that the production region did not affect interactions between steam and bitumen. The association rule suggested that the occurrence of gas co-injection implied the occurrence of low SOR, {Gas | Co-injection} {Low | SOR} (support:19%, confidence:93%, lift:1.9). Finally, we analyzed the carbon cost. Using the GHG emission limit set by Alberta carbon regulation, the average carbon cost accounted for 2% ($ t CO2e/ $ m3 undiluted bitumen) and $8/m3 (US $1.3/bbl) of undiluted bitumen price when the carbon price was CAD $30/t CO2e and undiluted bitumen price was $326/m3 (US $39/bbl).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207