OIL AND GAS PLAYS IN ALBANIA: DO EQUIVALENT PLAYS EXIST IN GREECE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Greece and Albania have had a broadly similar geological history and the hydrocarbon potentials of both areas may therefore be comparable. In this paper, we briefly review the stratigraphic and structural evolution of Albania and compare it with that of NW Greece in terms of source rocks, reservoirs, seals, structures and maturation history. In Albania, a number of sizeable oilfields produce from Mesozoic‐Paleogene carbonates assigned to the Ionian Zone; traps are thrust‐related anticlines. Gas is produced from both Mesozoic reservoir rocks and also from Tortonian‐Messinian sandstones along the eastern margin of the Neogene Durres Basin. In both Albania and western Greece, the Mesozoic to Eocene succession includes organic‐rich shales which were deposited on the Apulian margin of the Pindos Ocean. Tertiary closure of that ocean resulted in thin‐skinned thrusting onto the Apulian margin along Triassic evaporite décollements. Thick, late Eocene to Miocene flysch was deposited synchronously in the Pindos foreland basin, and was deformed by the advancing thrust system. The Neogene Durres and Preveza Basins developed on the Apulian foreland as a result of complex plate‐tectonic interactions and block rotations. NE‐trending lineaments played an important role in the evolution of these basins, and also gave rise to dip‐closed anticlines in the Ionian Zone successions in both countries. In Albania, the Vlora‐Elbasan lineament controlled the development of structural traps at producing oilfields, and the Cephalonia transform fault in Greece may have played an analogous structural role. Potential hydrocarbon plays in NW Greece, analogous to producing fields in Albania, are located in the Ionian thrust belt and in the Neogene Preveza Basin. In addition, the middle Tertiary flysch basins of both countries may have some gas potential.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".