4.6 Article

Microseepage in drylands: Flux and implications in the global atmospheric source/sink budget of methane

期刊

GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 265-274

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.01.002

关键词

microseepage; methane flux; soil sink; drylands; petroleum; greenhouse gas

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation
  2. U.S. Dept. of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drylands are considered a net sink for atmospheric methane and a main item of the global inventories of the greenhouse gas budget. It is outlined here, however, that a significant portion of drylands occur over sedimentary basins hosting natural gas and oil reservoirs, where gas migration to the surface takes place, producing positive fluxes of methane into the atmosphere. New field surveys, in different hydrocarbon-prone basins, confirm that microseepage, enhanced by faults and fractures in the rocks, overcomes the methanotrophic consumption occurring in dry soil throughout large areas, especially in the winter season. Fluxes of a few units to some tens of mg m(-2) day(-1) are frequent over oil-gas fields, whose global extent is estimated at 3.5-4.2 million km(2); higher fluxes (>50 mg m(-2) day(-1)) are primarily, but not exclusively, found in basins characterized by macro-seeps. Microseepage may however potentially exist over a wider area (similar to 8 million km(2), i.e. 15% of global drylands), including the Total Petroleum Systems, coal measures and portions of sedimentary basins that have experienced thermogenesis. Based on a relatively large and geographically dispersed data-set (563 measurements) from different hydrocarbon-prone basins in USA and Europe, upscaling suggests that global microseepage emission exceeding 10 Tg year(-1) is very likely. Microseepage is then only one component of a wider class of geological sources, including mud volcanoes, seeps, geothermal and marine seepage, which cannot be ignored in the atmospheric methane budget. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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