## 4 Conclusions
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
**CM.3** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & **74.5\%** & **70.1\%** & **70.1\%** & **70.1\%** \\ Oil Seep Real & **60.2\%** & **25.9\%** & 100.0\% & Oil Seep Real & **50.4\%** & **21.8\%** & **70.1\%** \\ Oil Spill Real & **39.9\%** & **74.1\%** & **70.1\%** & Oil Spill & **49.6\%** & **78.2\%** & 72.6\%** \\ Total DF & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & Total DF & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
**CM.4** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real & **CM.3** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real \\ Oil Seep Real & **1400** & 587 & **1994** & Oil Seep Real & 892 & 1102 & **1994** \\ Oil Spill Real & 857 & **1711** & **2568** & Oil Spill & 1735 & **2568** \\ Total DF & **2264** & **2298** & **4562** & Total DF & **1687** & **2875** & **4562** \\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
**CM.2** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real & **CM.2** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real \\ Oil Seep Real & **70.6\%** & **29.4\%** & 100.0\% & Oil Seep Real & **44.7\%** & **55.3\%** & 100.0\% \\ Oil Spill Real & **33.4\%** & **66.69\%** & 100.0\% & Oil Spill Real & **31.0\%** & **69.0\%** & 100.0\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
**CM.5** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & **74.3\%** & **70.1\%** & **70.1\%** \\ Oil Seep Real & **60.2\%** & **25.5\%** & **70.1\%** & Oil Seep Real & **52.9\%** & **38.3\%** & **70.1\%** \\ Oil Seep Real & **37.9\%** & **74.5\%** & Oil Seep Real & **47.1\%** & **61.2\%** & **72.6\%** \\ Total DF & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & Total DF & 1  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
**CM.1** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real & **CM.1** & DF Oil Seep & DF Oil Spill & Total Real \\ Oil Seep Real & 645 & 1349 & **1994** & Oil Seep Real & 1572 & 419 & **1994** \\ Oil Spill Real & 206 & 2362 & **2568** & Oil Spill & Real & 1230 & **1338** & **2568** \\ Total DF & **851** & **3713** & **4562** & Total DF & **2805** & **1757** & **4562** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{**TRU Oil Re  
Based on our comprehensive approach to find a simple way to discriminate seeps from spills, we are able to answer the three scientific questions:  
1. The two Logarithm functions (NLT.2: Log\({}_{10}\): and NLT.3: Ln) and Cube Root (NLT.6) have the most accurate seep-spill discrimination among the eight Data Transformation Approaches tested. 2. Of the different strategies tested for selecting relevant attributes (i.e., four input dataset versions--see Phase 7: Section 3.7), two (Set.2 and Set.3) have comparable discrimination power with Overall Accuracies of almost 70%; however, the sole use of UPGMA dendrograms (i.e., Set.3) excels at selecting uncorrelated variables as it provides a simpler form avoiding the implementation of additional Multivariate Data Analysis Techniques (i.e., PCA). This is clearly observed in an inspection of Table 6 (Set.3) and in a comparison with Table 5 [Set.2: the use of all variables (see Phase 5: Section 3.5.1--Figure 3 and Table 3) without the dendrogram selection (i.e., no UPGMA) but with the application of the PCA (see Phase 6: Section 3.6--Table 4)]. 3. The use of a collection of variables from two attribute selection strategies, i.e., Set.2 [no UPGMA with PCA (19 or 16 attributes but with 3 to 7 PCs--Table 5)] and Set.3 [UPGMA and no PCA (4 to 7 variables--Table 6)] is equally capable of discriminating seeps from spills. However, these are comparable to the sole use of the two Size Information Descriptor pairs (Area with Perimeter and PtoA with Compact) that outperform the SAR Information Descriptor pair (AVG with SKW)--see Table 7.  
Our EDA also demonstrates that using simple and low-cost RADARSAT-2 beam modes (SCNA and SCNB), one can achieve useful seep-spill discrimination accuracies, thus supporting new products for the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM): RADARSAT-2 Mode Selection for Maritime Surveillance (R2 MS2).