Mechanisms for Methane Transport and Hydrate Accumulation in Coarse-Grained Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of natural methane hydrate within high saturation reservoirs and mechanisms that control the migration of methane are an active area of research. In this project, we studied methane migration mechanisms and associated hydrate accumulation rates in coarse-grained sands of the Terrebonne Basin, located in Walker Ridge Block 313 (WR313), northern Gulf of Mexico. Hydrate in this area is distributed heterogeneously within ~900 m of methane hydrate stability zone, in both thick (10-25 m) and thin (< 3 m) sand layers, and in units of subvertical hydrate-filled fractures. We investigated hydrate formation from diffusively and advectively supplied methane using one-, two-, and three-dimensional basin modeling with inputs from well log and seismic data. The hydrate accumulations at WR313 can mostly be explained by short, diffusive migration of methane as well as short-range advective transport of methane from clays into neighboring coarser-grained layers. This is likely enhanced by small-scale lithologic variations, including local microbial methanogenesis in interbedded clays. Furthermore, our work shows overpressure in clay sediments surrounding sand reservoirs may enhance short-range diffusive migration. Long-range migration of dissolved methane and gas mainly influence hydrate saturation right at the base of the hydrate stability zone, although the dissolved phase can be channeled upwards along sands by compaction-driven flow. Capillary effects can allow gas bubbles to migrate appreciable distances above the predicted base of gas hydrate stability, possibly reaching a few tens of meters into the hydrate stability zone. Recycling methane from hydrate buried beneath the base of the hydrate stability zone can concentrate hydrate at large saturations within a few tens of meters of the base of hydrate stability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".