Explosive Processes in Permafrost as a Result of the Development of Local Gas-Saturated Fluid-Dynamic Geosystems

Abstract

The relevance of studying explosive processes in permafrost lies in the prospect of gas production from small gas-saturated zones in the subsurface; the influx of significant amounts of greenhouse gases from frozen soils creates a threat to infrastructure. The purpose of this article is to reveal the general patterns of frozen soils’ transformation in local zones of natural explosions. The greatest volume of information about the processes preceding the formation of gas-emission craters can be obtained by studying the deformations of the cryogenic structure of soil. The typification of the elements of the cryogenic structures of frozen soils that form the walls of various gas-emission craters was carried out. Structural and morphological analyses were used as a methodological basis for studying gas-emission craters. This method involves a set of operations that establishes links between the cryogenic structure of the crater walls and the morphologies of their surfaces. In this study, it is concluded that gas-emission craters are the result of the self-development of local gas-dynamic geosystems that are in a non-equilibrium thermodynamic state with respect to the enclosing permafrost.

Formation of giant Siberian gas emission craters (GECs)

“…2c). One model differs from the others by not forming a talik but a zone at increased temperatures below an ice layer under the lake floor (Khimenkov and Stanilovskaya, 2022). In this model, increased temperatures reach a methane hydrate layer that dissociates, releasing water and gas that migrate upward into permeable permafrost.…”

“…GECs may form within permafrost overlain by a pre-historic lake, forming a sub-lake talik (Buldovicz et al, 2018;Chuvilin et al, 2020a,b;Khimenkov and Stanilovskaya, 2022). During the lake stage, gas escapes through thawed sediments and out of the lake (Fig.…”

“…Key issues with the suggested models GEC1 (C1) has been interpreted to have formed at the bottom of a historic lake (Chuvilin et al, 2020a), and this is the main reason for the various historic-lake models. The main drawback is that GECs form in a variety of geological settings (Khimenkov and Stanilovskaya, 2022). Thus, the formation of GECs points to conditions specific for the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas in general, and not specifically to sites earlier covered by lakes.…”

“…Explosive events have resulted in near vertical cylindrical structures that are initially up to more than 50 meters deep, and with diameters of tens of meters. So far, eight GECs have been discovered in the limited area of the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas (Bogoyavlensky et al, 2021;Chuvilin et al, 2021;Khimenkov and Stanilovskaya, 2022). The formation of GECs has been connected to global climate change, with increasing summer and fall temperatures resulting in permafrost warming and degradation, triggering the release of gases trapped within the permafrost (Leibman et al, 2014;Bogoyavlensky et al, 2022).…”