MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DOLOMITIZATION AND RELATED FLUID EVOLUTION IN THE OLIGOCENE – MIOCENE ASMARI FORMATION, GACHSARAN AREA, SW IRAN: PETROGRAPHIC AND ISOTOPIC EVIDENCE

2009· article· en· W2011469041 on OpenAlexafffund
Ihsan S. Al‐Aasm, Fereydoun Ghazban, Mohsen Ranjbaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Geology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Academy of Sleep MedicineUniversity of TehranUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsDolomitizationGeologyDolomitePetrographyDiagenesisCalciteGeochemistryGrainstoneCementation (geology)MicriteCarbonateFaciesFluid inclusionsPaleontologyCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Petrographic and stable isotope investigations of Oligocene‐Miocene carbonates in the Asmari Formation from the Gachsaran oilfield and surrounding area in SW Iran indicate that the carbonates have been subjected to extensive diagenesis including calcite cementation and dolomitization. Diagenetic modification occurred in different diagenetic realms ranging from marine, meteoric and finally burial. Asmari carbonates were in general deposited in a ramp setting and are represented by intertidal to subtidal deposits together with lagoonal, shoal and low‐energy deposits formed below normal wave base. Lithofacies include bioclastic grainstones, ooidal and bioclastic, foraminiferal and intraclastic packstones, and mudstones. Multiple episodes of calcite cementation, dolomitization and fracturing have affected these rocks to varying degrees and control porosity. Four types of dolomites have been identified: microcrystalline matrix replacement dolomite (D1); fine to medium crystalline matrix replacement dolomite (D2); coarse crystalline saddle‐like dolomite cement (D3); and coarse crystalline zoned dolomite cement (D4). Microcrystalline dolomites (D1) (6–12 μm) replacing micrite, allochems and calcite cements in the mud‐supported facies prior to early compaction show δ18O and δ13C values of −4.01 to +1.02‰ VPDB and −0.30 to +4.08‰ VPDB, respectively. These values are slightly depleted with respect to postulated Oligocene‐Miocene marine carbonate values, suggesting their precipitation from seawater, partly altered by later fluids. The association of this type of dolomite with primary anhydrite in intertidal facies supports dolomitization by evaporative brines. Fine to medium crystalline matrix dolomites (D2) (20–60μm) occur mostly in grainstone facies and have relatively high porosities. These dolomites formed during early burial and could be considered as recrystallized forms of D1 dolomite. Their isotopic values overlap those of D1 dolomites, implying precipitation from similar early fluids, possibly altered by meteoric fluids. Coarse crystalline saddle‐like dolomites (D3) (200–300 μm) partially or completely occlude fractures and vugs. The vugs developed through the dissolution of carbonate components and rarely matrix carbonates, while fractures developed during Zagros folding in late Oligocene to early Miocene times. A final diagenetic episode is represented by the precipitation of coarse crystalline planar e‐s zoned dolomite (D4) (80–250 μm) that occurs in fractures and vugs and also replaces earlier dolomite and post‐dates stylolitization. Fluids responsible for the formation of D3 and D4 dolomites are affected by brine enrichment and increasing temperatures due to increasing burial. Reservoir porosity is dominated by microcrystalline pore spaces in muddy, dolomitized matrix and mouldic and vuggy porosity in grainstone. Porosity was significantly enhanced by the formation of multiple fracture systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum GeologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207