MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029053517 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2020.1771174

Clay Mineral Alteration in Oil and Gas Fields: Integrated Analyses of Surface Expression, Soil Spectra, and X-Ray Diffraction Data

2020· article· en· W3029053517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tri Muji Susantoro, Asep Saepuloh, Fitriani Agustin, Ketut Wikantika, Agus Handoyo Harsolumakso

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMineralogyStructural basinHydrocarbonOil fieldSoil scienceDrillingGeomorphologyChemistryMaterials sciencePetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subsurface hydrocarbon occurrences can be detected by clay mineral (CM) alteration at the surface as a consequence of hydrocarbon migration. This study analyzed CM alteration in an oil and gas (O&G) field in the West Tugu field, located in the northwest Java Basin of Indonesia. Landsat 8 OLI data acquired on 25 September 2015 and soil spectral reflectance (SSR) data recorded using analytical spectral devices (ASD) in March 2017 were processed using clay indices to analyze CM alteration. Soil samples from a field survey of the same area were also analyzed using X-ray diffraction (XRD) to identify their CM compositions. CM distribution was empirically modeled by integrating the SSR bands re-sampled to Landsat 8 OLI (SSRL) bands and the CM composition using the best subset regression method and regression analyses. The resulting model was applied to Landsat 8 OLI images to map the surface CM alteration. The results show that CM alteration observed in the O&G field is an indicator of hydrocarbon microseepage at the surface. These results can be used as a technique to identify prospective regions that contain hydrocarbons and differentiate from those that are barren, and could be useful for increasing the rate of drilling success.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207