Bibliographic record
Abstract
technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction. The Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is a major source of natural gas supply for the North American market, with Y2000 basin productivity at more than 16 Bcf/d. Significant natural decline requires that in excess of 3 Bcf/d of new supply must be added each year simply to maintain constant basin deliverability. In addition, the average rate added per well continued to decrease while the initial decline rate increased. During the decade of the 1990s, over 25 Bcf/d of new western Canadian gas deliverability was added, from over 42,000 new producing well events. Based on the year of pool discovery and the year that the area was first connected to the delivery system, there are four definable Exploration and Development strategies. Each of the four strategies (Exploration, Connection, Development and Renewal) contributed a significant amount of gas rate additions. What role will exploration and development strategies play in future gas supply? This paper illustrates the trends in gas supply additions over the last decade, including a view of the geographic distribution, as well as other attributes. There is also a comparison of the portfolios of E&D strategies that operators employed. A brief synopsis of the methodology followed to determine a consistent measurement of gas rate-additions is also presented. Careful analysis of the historical results has yielded useful insights for operators as they make their choices about their future activities. 2
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.725 | 0.630 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".