MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238594184 · doi:10.2523/iptc-13156-ms

Basement Reservoirs - A Review of their Geological and Production Characteristics

2009· review· en· W4238594184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsMira Geoscience (Canada)Geoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBasementEnvironmental geologyHydrocarbon explorationGeochemistrySource rockEarth scienceEngineering geologyMetamorphic rockMining engineeringPetrologyTectonicsGeomorphologyPaleontologyStructural basinMetamorphic petrologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This presentation describes the geological characteristics, technical issues and development challenges associated with hydrocarbon exploitation in crystalline basement formations. The term 'basement' here refers to crystalline formations ranging from intrusive and extrusive magmatic bodies (especially granites) to the family of low to medium grade metamorphic rocks. Hydrocarbons have been under production from these types of rocks around the world for many decades (see www.geoscience.co.uk for a review) but since around 1990 there has been growing interest and exploration in these formations where matrix porosity is neglible and storage and production are dominated by the fracture system (a Type 1 reservoir of Nelson 2001). For example, the Arabian shield basement of Yemen and the Tertiary basement granites offshore Vietnam are two classic areas for this type of development, and significant production has been achieved. Other less publicised locations have also been investigated including prospects on the UK continental shelf. The presentation draws on reservoir characterisation and modelling projects in basement hydrocarbon fields around the world, as well as investigations of basement rocks for deep geothermal resource exploitation (EGS) and also for sub-surface disposal of radioactive waste. The objective is to provide a synthesis and consolidation of learnings from these investigations in terms of the geological character and controls on fracture development, fluid flow and ultimately reservoir quality for hydrocarbon exploitation. Basement Charging Mechanisms Most basement hydrocarbons are hosted in structural highs of varying but generally moderate to large elevation (hundreds or even 1000m +). The highs are formed by fault-controlled blocks, often in rift settings, or by palaeo-hills buried below sedimentary cover. A second type of setting comprises intrusive igneous bodies (plutons) within sedimentary sequences. In all cases an overlying seal formation is found at some level. Additionally, some of the overlying, or fault-juxtaposed, sedimentary units may also be charged so that a composite hydrocarbon play is developed. For example, sandstone 'washes' above top granite surfaces or carbonate formations which developed on or adjacent to the fault blocks. Most basement charging is thought to have taken place by lateral or up-dip migration from kitchen areas in nearby structural lows. The migration route is through higher permeability sedimentary units, active faults and perhaps also at the basement / cover interface, thence into the basement itself. One example, from the basement fields West of Shetland on the UK continental shelf, is shown in Figure 1. Other examples are found in the rift basins offshore Vietnam (CuuLong Basin) and onshore in Yemen (eg Sab'atayn Rift).

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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