Characterization of Ordovician carbonate reservoirs, southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of the prolific Ordovician Red River reservoirs in 1995 in southeastern Saskatchewan was the catalyst for extensive exploration activity which resulted in the discovery of more than 15 new Red River pools. The best yields of Red River production to date have been from dolomite reservoirs. Understanding the processes of dolomitization is, therefore, crucial for the prediction of the connectivity, spatial distribution and heterogeneity of dolomite reservoirs.The Red River reservoirs in the Midale area consist of 3～4 thin dolomitized zones, with a total thickness of about 20 m, which occur at the top of the Yeoman Formation. Two types of replacement dolomite were recognized in the Red River reservoir: dolomitized burrow infills and dolomitized host matrix. The spatial distribution of dolomite suggests that burrowing organisms played an important role in facilitating the fluid flow in the backfilled sediments. This resulted in penecontemporaneous dolomitization of burrow infills by normal seawater. The dolomite in the host matrix is interpreted as having occurred at shallow burial by evaporitic seawater during precipitation of Lake Almar anhydrite that immediately overlies the Yeoman Formation. However, the low δ18O values of dolomited burrow infills (-5.9‰～ -7.8‰, PDB) and matrix dolomites (-6.6‰～ -8.1‰, avg. -7.4‰ PDB) compared to the estimated values for the late Ordovician marine dolomite could be attributed to modification and alteration of dolomite at higher temperatures during deeper burial, which could also be responsible for its 87Sr/86Sr ratios (0.7084～0.7088) that are higher than suggested for the late Ordovician seawaters (0.7078～0.7080). The trace amounts of saddle dolomite cement in the Red River carbonates are probably related to cannibalization of earlier replacement dolomite during the chemical compaction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".