MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045347949 · doi:10.4043/24219-ms

Best Practices for the Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation of Seabed Geochemical Samples To Evaluate Subsurface Hydrocarbon Generation and Entrapment

2013· article· en· W2045347949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoringSeabedHydrocarbonGeologyHydrocarbon explorationSedimentPetroleumSource rockPetroleum engineeringOceanographyGeomorphologyDrillingStructural basinChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The detection and measurement of migrated hydrocarbons in near-surface marine sediments is a relatively routine exploration method to investigate issues of hydrocarbon charge. The presence of near-surface migrated thermogenic hydrocarbons provides strong evidence that an active petroleum system is present, as well as critical information on source, maturity and migration pathways. There are multiple methods currently applied by industry to collect, prepare, extract, and analyze migrated hydrocarbons within near-surface marine sediments. To improve the detection of seabed thermogenic hydrocarbon seepage, core samples should be collected along likely major migration pathways (cross stratal leakage features) identified by conventional deep seismic and high-resolution seafloor imaging technology. Real time imaging provides greater detail to confirm targeted features for more precise core targeting. Not all targeted cores will hit the designated feature and thus collecting replicates along major migration features is critical. Collecting sediment samples below the Zone of Maximum Disturbance (ZMD) to avoid possible transition zone alteration effects and recent organic matter (ROM) masking problems is critical. Choosing a coring device best suited for local seabed conditions will maximize both penetration and sediment recovery. Multiple sections per core should be collected at variable depths providing a geochemistry profile. Geochemical analysis should include a full range of hydrocarbon types; hydrocarbon gases (C1 to C5), gasoline plus range hydrocarbons (C5 to C12), and high molecular weight hydrocarbons (C12+). Two types of geochemistry samples should be collected; one to capture the volatile light hydrocarbons (C1 to C12) and non-hydrocarbon gases; and a second for the higher molecular weight hydrocarbons (C12+). The light hydrocarbons require special handling and containers to limit volatile loss and prevent post sampling microbial alteration. Bulk sediment measurements such as quantity of organic matter and sand percent can provide additional important non geochemical information. Identification of background versus anomalous populations is critical when evaluating sub-surface migrated seabed hydrocarbons. Sediment hydrocarbons are normally highly altered and may not resemble conventional reservoir oil. Novel petroleum related hydrocarbon compounds need to be examined to fully evaluate organic maturity and source facies. Mapping thermogenic hydrocarbon seeps (oil and gas) relative to key cross-stratal migration pathways via fluid flow modeling and seismic attribute analysis provides an effective petroleum systems tool to better understand the near-surface petroleum relative to subsurface hydrocarbon generation and entrapment. Bear in mind not all surface geochemical surveys will result in the detection of statistically valid thermogenic hydrocarbon seepage.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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