2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.104166
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of gas hydrate saturation and morphology based on a generalized effective medium model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 63 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A combination of geochemical data (gas hydrate dissociation related pore-fluid freshening upon corerecovery), core infra-red (IR) imaging, geophysical logging (P-wave velocity and electrical resistivity), in situ temperature measurements, and seismic observations of BSRs indicated that the base of the GHSZ matches the expected depth of a theoretical methane-dominated system in equilibrium with a hydrostatic pressure regime and the site-specific background pore-water salinity (Riedel et al 2010). In situ gas hydrate concentrations (Sh, reported here as percent of pore-space filled with hydrate) were estimated at all sites from different techniques: loggingbased electrical resistivity and P-wave velocity, pore-fluid chlorinity freshening, pressure core degassing, and IR imaging (e.g., Chen 2006;Malinverno et al 2008;Chen et al 2008;Torres et al 2008;Pan et al 2020). All techniques show overall low average concentrations of < 10% of the pore space (Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A combination of geochemical data (gas hydrate dissociation related pore-fluid freshening upon corerecovery), core infra-red (IR) imaging, geophysical logging (P-wave velocity and electrical resistivity), in situ temperature measurements, and seismic observations of BSRs indicated that the base of the GHSZ matches the expected depth of a theoretical methane-dominated system in equilibrium with a hydrostatic pressure regime and the site-specific background pore-water salinity (Riedel et al 2010). In situ gas hydrate concentrations (Sh, reported here as percent of pore-space filled with hydrate) were estimated at all sites from different techniques: loggingbased electrical resistivity and P-wave velocity, pore-fluid chlorinity freshening, pressure core degassing, and IR imaging (e.g., Chen 2006;Malinverno et al 2008;Chen et al 2008;Torres et al 2008;Pan et al 2020). All techniques show overall low average concentrations of < 10% of the pore space (Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%