The Study for Technical Analysis on the Development Potential of Multi-Zone Oil, Gas in Crossfield, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossfield is located in the province of Alberta in Canada and is one of the most well-known reservoirs of hydrocarbons. Since the 1950s, there has been continuous exploitation of more than 10 formations such as Cardium, Viking, Ellerslie, Elkton, Shunda, and Wabamun. Because of its location near the Foothills, the southwestern part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, the Crossfield area has a complex geology and relatively deeper reservoirs, therefore requiring an in-depth examination of each formation. In this study, geological, technical, and economic analyses were performed on each formation within the 10 sections of the study lands in the Crossfield area. As the result of the study, there was potential for drilling 48 horizontal wells in the Cardium A zone and the Viking formation. In addition, it turned out to be economically feasible even at the WTI price of 60 dollars per barrel considering Alberta’s Royalty Framework, which is determined by the production rate and the price of oil, and the Horizontal Oil New Well Royalty Rate feature. A further study is required to investigate the exploitation potential of the Cardium B zone, the Ellerslie, and the Elkton formations in this area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".