MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739240634 · doi:10.1002/gj.2965

Paleoenvironmental, diagenetic, and eustatic controls on the Permo–Triassic carbonate–evaporite reservoir quality, Upper Dalan and Kangan formations, Lavan Gas Field, Zagros Basin

2017· article· en· W2739240634 on OpenAlexaff
Arman Jafarian, Mohammad Javanbakht, Ardiansyah Koeshidayatullah, Nuno Pimentel, Osman Salad Hersi, Ahmad Yahyaei, Maryam Beigi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersIslamic Azad University
KeywordsDolomitizationGeologyEvaporiteSabkhaDiagenesisCarbonateAnhydritePaleontologyGeochemistryCarbonate rockFaciesStructural basinSedimentary rockGypsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permo–Triassic (P–T) successions in Iran are known as one of the most extensive carbonate–evaporite sequences in the world, holding prolific hydrocarbon accumulations, such as the gas fields in the Zagros Basin. This study addresses the impact of paleoenvironmental changes across the P–T extinction boundary, variations in eustatic level and diagenesis on the carbonate reservoir quality of the Permo–Triassic Upper Dalan and Kangan formations in the Lavan Gas Field (offshore Zagros). A total of eight lithofacies have been defined and interpreted, representing the shallower parts (inner ramp to shoal) of a carbonate homoclinal ramp. The diagenetic features show the mixing influence of marine, meteoric and burial processes, with prevalence of multistage dolomitization and late meteoric‐related imprints. The main dolomitization processes are interpreted to be penecontemporaneous and associated with continuous seawater reflux and high evaporation within the intertidal environment. Combined analysis of facies and petrophysical properties has been utilized to define six rock types, including RT4 (grainstones from oolitic shoals) as the best reservoir, whereas RT1 (supratidal anhydrite) is acting as the main cap rock within the studied carbonate–evaporite sequence. Multiscale characterization of lithological and petrophysical properties suggest that the Upper Dalan Formation has a single reservoir unit (D1), whereas the Kangan Formation may be divided into two reservoir units (K1 and K2). The best reservoir quality is promoted by dissolution and dolomitization associated with late Transgressive Sequence Tracts (TST) to early Highstand Sequence Tracts (HST) sequences, while low reservoir quality corresponds to late HST sequences accompanied by pore‐occluded cements. Petrophysical analysis suggest better porosity‐permability for the Upper Dalan than for the Kangan Formation. This observation is closely associated with the different nature of lithofacies, where the Kangan Formation contains more fine‐grained carbonate rocks, and the higher intensity of porosity‐grain dolomitization in the Upper Dalan Formation. This study provides a better understanding on reservoir quality prediction across the P–T boundary and the effect of eustatic fluctuations and diagenesis in controlling porosity‐permeability evolution with similar settings elsewhere.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological JournalSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207