Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploration in the 1970s and early 1980s identified approximately 4.2 TCF of natural gas and 123 million barrels of natural gas liquids on the Labrador Shelf within the Hopedale and Saglek basins. At the time, development was deemed unfeasible due to insufficient reserves and the threat posed by icebergs. Subsequent work has shown the original iceberg risk analysis to be very conservative. An iceberg risk model was developed to update the previous analysis and additional data was collected through a series of field programs. This resulted in a large multibeam mosaic covering the Makkovik Bank and pipeline landfall at Cape Harrison, and the development of a large iceberg scour database. An alternate landfall has also been identified at Cartwright with lower iceberg risk than the originally selected site. In 2010, the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador (OilCo) undertook a regional oil seep mapping and interpretation study covering all offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, to help identify areas of interest with active petroleum systems. Based on these results, from 2011 to 2020 Oilco acquired 2D and 3D long offset broadband seismic datasets targeting the Chidley Basin, in the slope and deepwater off Labrador. This data has been used to map and quantify potential hydrocarbon systems within the basin. In 2021, Beicip-Franlab conducted a resource assessment on behalf of OilCo, based on available geological and geophysical data from the Chidley Basin. As reported in "Offshore Newfoundland & Labrador Resource Assessment, Labrador South NL-CFB03", "results show the very likely occurrence of a working petroleum system in the Chidley Basin capable of efficiently generating and preserving liquid and gas hydrocarbons in the slope and deepwater basin". Hence, the probability of additional resources to increase the total reserves available to support a gas development is considered high. If exploration drilling confirms the presence of gas, then the total gas available for development will include the original 4.2 TCF and any new reserves. Hence, the two barriers originally identified to the development of Labrador gas (iceberg risk and gas reserves) may be resolved.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".