Measuring Concentrations of Dissolved Methane and Ethane and the <sup>13</sup> C of Methane in Shale and Till
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Baseline characterization of concentrations and isotopic values of dissolved natural gases is needed to identify contamination caused by the leakage of fugitive gases from oil and gas activities. Methods to collect and analyze baseline concentration‐depth profiles of dissolved CH 4 and C 2 H 6 and δ 13 C‐CH 4 in shales and Quaternary clayey tills were assessed at two sites in the Williston Basin, Canada. Core and cuttings samples were stored in Isojars ® in a low O 2 headspace prior to analysis. Measurements and multiphase diffusion modeling show that the gas concentrations in core samples yield well‐defined and reproducible depth profiles after 31‐d equilibration. No measurable oxidative loss or production during core sample storage was observed. Concentrations from cuttings and mud gas logging (including IsoTubes ® ) were much lower than from cores, but correlated well. Simulations suggest the lower concentrations from cuttings can be attributed to drilling time, and therefore their use to define gas concentration profiles may have inherent limitations. Calculations based on mud gas logging show the method can provide estimates of core concentrations if operational parameters for the mud gas capture cylinder are quantified. The δ 13 C‐CH 4 measured from mud gas, IsoTubes ® , cuttings, and core samples are consistent, exhibiting slight variations that should not alter the implications of the results in identifying the sources of the gases. This study shows core and mud gas techniques and, to a lesser extent, cuttings, can generate high‐resolution depth profiles of dissolved hydrocarbon gas concentrations and their isotopes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".