4.2 Article

Subsurface occurrence of natural gas hydrate in the Nankai Trough Area: Implication for gas hydrate concentration

期刊

RESOURCE GEOLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 35-44

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-3928.2004.tb00185.x

关键词

Nankai Trough; gas hydrate; X-ray CT; pore-space hydrate; hydrate saturation; porosity; permeability; methane; occurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Nankai Trough runs along the Japanese Islands, where extensive BSRs have been recognized in its forearc basins. High resolution seismic surveys and site-survey wells undertaken by the MITI have revealed the gas hydrate distribution at a depth of about 290 mbsf. The MITI Nankai Trough wells were drilled in late 1999 and early 2000. The highlights were successful retrievals of abundant gas hydrate-bearing cores in a variety of sediments from the main hole and the post survey well-2, keeping the cored gas hydrate stable, and the obtaining of continuous well log data in the gas hydrate-dominant intervals from the main hole, the post survey well-1 and the post survey well-3. Gas-hydrate dominant layers were identified at the depth interval from 205 to 268 mbsf. Pore-space hydrate, very small in size, was recognized mostly filling intergranular pores of sandy sediments. Anomalous chloride contents in extracted pore water, core temperature depression, core observations as well as visible gas hydrates confirmed the presence of pore-space hydrates within moderate to thick sand layers. Gas hydrate-bearing sandy strata typically were 10 cm to a meter thick with porosities of about 40 %. Gas hydrate saturations in most hydrate-dominant layers were quite high, up to 90 % pore saturation. All the gas hydrate-bearing cores were subjected to X-ray CT imagery measurements for observation of undisturbed sedimentary textures and gas-hydrate occurrences before being subjected to other analyses, such as (1) petrophysical properties, (2) biostratigraphy, (3) geochemistry, (4) microbiology and (5) gas hydrate characteristics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据