MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082309856 · doi:10.4043/22094-ms

Diagenetic Methane Hydrate Formation in Permafrost: A New Gas Play?

2011· article· en· W2082309856 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostClathrate hydrateGeologyDiagenesisHydrateMethaneNatural gasGeochemistryArcticEarth scienceGeomorphologyOceanographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High-grade permafrost hydrate concentrations in shallow geological traps constitute primary hydrate natural gas exploration objectives. The hydrate in these deposits can be compared with authigenic mineral deposits because the concentrated gas was largely already in the geological traps before being converted to hydrate. These natural gas hydrate deposits have been identified in Russia, Canada, and Alaska using conventional hydrocarbon exploration techniques. In a very different permafrost hydrate paragenesis, diagenetic hydrate deposits have now been identified in veinworks in the shallow permafrost terrain of the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in western China. These are superficially similar to some vein-type oceanic hydrate deposits. They were formed when natural gas was introduced in fractures within and associated with frozen ground in permafrost terrane and are very different from conventional gas traps. To date, hydrate exploration in permafrost terrane has used a petroleum system model. But new system models, geophysical analysis techniques, and production models are required for diagenetic hydrate deposits in which hydrate concentrates natural gas in secondary porosity. The identification of diagenetic permafrost hydrate in China raises a new economic geology proposition. It can be used to suggest that the Arctic permafrost region in Eurasia and North America may also have similar diagenetic deposits that have gone unrecognized. A new type of permafrost hydrate formation mechanism would have the effect of expanding the likelihood of permafrost methane hydrate economic potential. Introduction Natural gas hydrate is a crystalline material composed of water molecules that form cage structures that are occupied by gas molecules, the whole being stabilized by van der Waals bonding. Methane is the dominant gas found in naturally occurring hydrates on Earth, and most of this methane appears to be characterized by a light isotopic fraction consistent with biogenetic origin. Heavier density hydrocarbon gases found commonly where thermogenic gas sources exist are the next most common gases in naturally occurring hydrate. Other gases, such as H2S, N2, and CO2, are found as traces in hydrate. Because the cage structures are close together in the crystalline structure, the gas is compressed about 164 times by volume, at STP. Concentrated deposits of natural gas hydrate constitute a potential unconventional source of natural gas. Natural gas hydrate occurs on earth in two different environments (Fig. 1), within permafrost terrains and in oceanic marine sediments on deep continental shelves and margins (Max et al., 2003). Although both permafrost and oceanic natural gas hydrates were initially scientific curiosities, the volume of gas contained in hydrate was quickly recognized as being of gigantic proportions. Hydrate is now the subject of exploration and assessment as a potential economic natural gas resource. Hydrate deposits identified to date in Arctic permafrost, initially in Siberian gas fields in thick permafrost terrain (Makogan, 1972) and then in Canada and Alaska, appear to have been formed from preexisting conventional gas deposits that were already concentrated in geological traps. The majority of this hydrate is generally regarded as having been formed from the in-place gas as permafrost deepened during intensification of the most recent glacial episode (Max et al., 2006) that reached its maximum a little over 20,000 years ago. These are essentially authigenic hydrate mineral deposits in that the gas was already large present in its geological trap before being converted to hydrate. Recognition of these permafrost hydrate deposits has closely followed a conventional petroleum system model. How much of the hydrate may actually have formed during previous glacial maxima (Winograd et al., 1997) is uncertain but the persistence of permafrost hydrate deposits to the present, well into our interglacial period suggests that some of the permafrost hydrate may have survived from one glacial maximum to the next through the Pleistocene, along with some ice in the permafrost.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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