- Objectives and competences
- Admission and pre-enrolment
- Course curriculum
- Teaching methodology and assessment system
- Career opportunities
- Support for studying
- Calendar, timetables, classrooms and assessment
- Course plans and teaching staff
- Course details
Reservoir Geology and Geophysics
The main lines of research contemplated are: Basin analysis and architecture, Diagraph and petrophysical analysis, Diagnosis, Lithospheric dynamics, Structural geology, Lithospheric and surface geophysics, Reservoir geology and geophysics, Geological and geophysical modeling, Sedimentology, Reflection seismic, Oil systems.
This subject is defined as an autonomous and individual project that allows the student to show in an integrated way the training contents and skills acquired throughout the master's degree.
Its main objective is to show that students, at the end of the master's degree, are able to:
- Applying the knowledge and skills gained in problem solving in new or little-known environments within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to the geological and/or geophysical characterization of reservoirs.
- Develop learning skills that allow them to organize and manage their time, work as a team or autonomously, manage and systematize information, and also extract and structure the information that is most relevant.
- Communicate your conclusions and knowledge acquired in a well-argued way.
These competencies are intended to be achieved by carrying out a research project from which students denote the ability to critically assess and analyze a problem related to the subject of the master's degree and present, through an original investigation, a solution or contribution that expands the frontiers of knowledge. This contribution must consist of a substantial body that in whole or in part may merit published in a referenced publication.
Depending on its characteristics,this project may be:
- Experimental work: defining a problem, designing data collection and discussing the results.
- Work of analysis of experimental data from previous experiments, job collection, public data, etc.
Both types of work may be carried out in the institutions participating in the teaching of the master's degree or in any other public research centre or company related to the exploration, characterization and geological and geophysical monitoring of basins and/or sedimentary reservoir systems.
The organization, coordination and elaboration of the teaching plan of the subject falls under the responsibility of a teacher teacher assigned by the Coordinating Commission of the Master's Degree in Geology and Geophysics of Reservoirs. This teacher responsible for the subject is also in charge of:
- Appoint the examination panel that value the research projects proposed and carried out by each student.
- Ensure all students have an assigned topic and tutor.
- Publish the issues and tutors assigned through the appropriate information channels.
This panel will be different for students studying a more geological or geophysical itinerary and will be made up of three doctoral professors from the UAB, the UB or any other research entity participating in the teaching of the master (for example, Institute of Earth Sciences "Jaume Almera"). In addition to these members, the Master's Coordinating Commission will appoint 3 other doctoral professors who will act as substitutes.
The panel must assess the viability and adequacy of the projects presented in a first oral presentation and, in accepted projects, evaluate the results obtained by the student in the written report and in a second (final) oral presentation. The panel must also assess the degree of achievement by the student of the competencies defined for the subject.
Regarding the assessment, adaptation and evaluation of the projects submitted, the panels may request, if they consider it appropriate, the help of an external specialist who must issue a confidential report on these aspects. This non-binding report will also be sent to the professor responsible for the TFM.
The members of the panel will not be able to participate in the evaluation and qualification of the projects / works tutored by themselves. In these cases, such assessment and qualification will be carried out by the other members of the panel.
In each academic the assignment of students to one of the two proposed tribunals (geology and geophysics) year will be carried out by the professor responsible for the subject, depending on the proposed research project and the subjects taken by the student in the first semester.
The project must be carried out under the guidance of a tutor teacher who must act as a facilitator and facilitator of the learning process. This tutor professor can be any doctor from a higher education institution or from public research organizations. In the event that the assigned tutor is not a doctor or does not belong to the teaching team of the master, he must share the tutoring with a doctor of this teaching team. The responsibilities of the tutors are reflected in the document Funciones del Tutor en el Trabajo de Fin de Máster (in Spanish).
The assignment and choice of the subject and tutor of the Final Master's Project will be carried out in the first semester of each academic year. In this period, the student must find a tutor and design, together with her, the research project to be carried out. All teachers participating in the teaching of any of the master's subjects are required to submit at least one tutoring offer or project, which will be included in a list to be distributed among the students. In the event that the student does not find a tutor, they should contact the coordinator of the subject "Final Project" who will assign a tutor and subject.
At the end of the first semester, the coordinator will publish the list of accepted works, with the name of the student, the tutor, and if applicable, the corresponding co-tutor.
The accrediting evaluation of the research project will be carried out based on a written memory and two public oral presentations:
- A first: to be done at the beginning of the second semester (early February) in which the student presents the objectives, methodology and interest of the work to be done, and its viability and adequacy to the objectives of the subject are assessed.
- A second: the final one, in which the student exposes and defends the research project carried out.
A brief report issued by the academic tutor or tutors may also be taken into account, and, if appropriate, the report issued by an external specialist.
The written report must be done in English and in the format of a scientific article with an extension of 15-25 printed pages. It is a document that must be written in a 1.5 line spacing and Arial font (minimum 10 pt.), And which must include:
- Cover page with the title of the work, author, name of the tutor and title of the master completed.
- Abstract with a maximum length of 200 words. This summary must be delivered as a separate file in pdf format to the professor responsible for the subject, and will be published on the official website of the master's course. If applicable, this file may be accompanied by a representative figure of the work carried out.
- Introduction and objectives, which includes the justification of the work, the objectives and / or hypotheses of work.
- Methodology used (depending on the type of work).
- More significant results with its graphs, tables, etc.
- Discussion of the results in relation to the objectives and / or hypotheses raised.
- Acknowledgments (if applicable).
- In case an annex is required it must be in digital format where the data used to carry out the project is attached.
Before the public defense, the academic tutor of each project must issue a confidential written report (in Catalan) assessing in a non-quantitative way the development of the work and the skills acquired by the student. In this report, delivered in a sealed envelope, it must be indicated whether the work carried out is subject to processes of protection and / or transfer of technology and / or knowledge.
The report must be presented in quadruplicate. Together with the tutor's report, it will be deposited into the UAB Department of Geology secretary. The deadline for delivery of this documentation will be at the end of June, between 7 and 15 before the scheduled date for oral public defense. All documentation submitted after this date will not be taken into consideration except for justified causes.
The date of the second exhibition will also be set by the president of each panel, according to the coordinator, and will be between June 29 and July 6.
Before the public exhibition, the following documentation must be delivered to the panel:
- Four copies of the memory of the research work (one for each member of the panel, and the fourth copy by the University archive).
- Confidential report of the academic tutor of the research work.
- Three paper copies of the presentation used in computer support during this second oral presentation.
Paper copies of all presentations will have to be released before the beginning of the oral presentation of the first work. Subsequent changes in the submissions of successive candidates will not be accepted.
All projects will have to be defended in public session, except the works subjected to processes of protection and / or transfer of technology and / or knowledge. In these cases, by unanimous agreement of the members of the panel, the tutor and the student, the defense may be held behind closed doors. The members of the panel have the obligation to maintain absolute secrecy and confidentiality about the content of these projects, signing a commitment to confidentiality for the period of time necessary to make protection.
For the public defense of their research project, each student will have a maximum of 20 minutes to present in English not only the content and main results of the project but also justify the changes introduced with respect to the initial proposal. With the aim of completing the assessment of the research work, a discussion and questions will be opened next by the members of the panel that will not exceed 10 minutes.
The oral presentation of the works will be done in alphabetical order, starting from a letter randomly chosen. Any change in the order thus established will have to be justified, and subsequently evaluated and accepted by the president of the panel.
After the public defense of all the projects presented, the panel will grant a global numerical grade to the Project, which will range from 0 to 10. This grade will be 3.5 in those projects that do not meet all the guidelines indicated in this regulation, both regarding the drafting of the written report and the public defense of the project. In the other cases, the qualification will be based on the assessment by the panel of the written memory, and the presentation and oral defense of the project.
The weight of these two evidences that make up the system for evaluating the Project will be: written memory 50% and oral defense of the project 50%.
In this evaluation process, the panel may also take into account the report of the tutor whose weight will never exceed 10%. Finally, an overall grade of less than 5 will mean not passing the Master's Final Project.
Overall rating of work:
- EXCELLENT: Perfect coherence and absolute clarity between the statement of objectives, problems, and subsequent usefulness of the results. Originality and innovation are highly acceptable.
- GOOD: Significant internal consistency between objectives, problem approaching and utility of the project. Originality, innovation and applied proposals are quite acceptable.
- SUFFICIENT: Acceptable consistency between objectives, innovation, originality and practical proposals. Correct originality and innovation. Practical applications are unrealistic.
- FAIL: Undefined objectives, inconsistent explanations, no relevance. Shortage of originality and innovation. Insufficient ideas for the implementation of the work results.
Use of theories
- EXCELLENT: Convincing explanation of the fundamental theories. Perfect integration of the fundamentals with the objectives of the work. Clear exposition of the advancements to be achieved with the project.
- GOOD: Fundamental theories correctly exposed. Remarkable effort to synthesize theories and goals. Arguments about the progress to be achieved with the project are quite acceptable.
- SUFFICIENT: Correct use of fundamental theories but not linked to the objectives. Little information about the progress to be achieved with the project.
- FAIL: Fundamental theories irregularly exposed. Confusion of ideas and lack of immersion in their theories. Project does not contribute to scientific progress and knowledge.
- EXCELLENT: Total adequacy between the methodology and objectives. Research instruments used are perfectly argued and described. Impeccable interpretation of data and results. Perfect coherence between research results and conclusions.
- GOOD: Notable adequacy between methods and proposed theme. Instruments and tools are well selected. Reasoned and justified interpretation of results. Conclusions fairly consistent with the methodology and instruments.
- SUFFICIENT: Correct connection between methodology and instruments. Permissible argument about the methods used. Data properly obtained but not comprehensively analyzed. Correct, but in some cases incomplete, conclusions.
- FAIL: Poor adequacy between the research theme, methodology, and selected instruments. Insufficient, and sometimes erroneous, data collection. Partial interpretation of the data sets. Poor conclusions.
Formal aspects of the memory
- EXCELLENT: Clarity, precision, and order in the structure of the project. Clear and concise writing. Very good graphics quality. Completely adequate and updated bibliography.
- GOOD: Clarity and order in the structure of work. Grammatically correct writing. Good graphics quality. Adequate and updated bibliography.
- SUFFICIENT: Acceptable structure and writing. Acceptable graphics quality. Acceptable bibliography.
- FAIL: Poor structure and writing. Poor or illegible graphics quality. Inadequate and/or outdated bibliography.
- EXCELLENT: Very good communication and debate ability. Excellent argumentation and defense of ideas. Clear pronunciation. Very good adjustment of technologies to the requirements of the oral presentation. Very good presentation time.
- GOOD: Good communication and debate ability. Acceptable argumentation and defense of ideas. Proper adjustment of technologies to the requirements of the oral presentation. Good presentation time.
- SUFFICIENT: Correct communication and debate ability. Poor adjustment of technologies to the requirements of the oral presentation. Barely meets the required presentation time.
- FAIL: Poor communication and debate ability. Confusion in the argumentation and defense of ideas. Inadequate adjustment of technologies to the requirements of the oral presentation. Does not meet presentation time.
- Presenting a new written memory that incorporates the comments, modifications and corrections indicated by the panel in the second oral presentation.
- If the panel considers it pertinent, making a new oral presentation in which the student will defend the research project again.