Proc. IODP, 338, Methods

IODP Proceedings Volume contents Search


Expedition reports Research results Supplementary material Drilling maps Expedition bibliography
Chapter contents Introduction Drilling operations Reference depths Sampling and classification of material transported by drilling mud Influence of drilling mud composition on cuttings Cuttings handling Drilling mud handling Mud gas handling Core handling Authorship of site chapters Logging while drilling LWD systems and tools Onboard data flow and quality check Log characterization and lithologic interpretation Physical properties Lithology Macroscopic observations of cuttings Macroscopic observations of core X-ray computed tomography Microscopic observation of cuttings Q-index Smear slides Thin sections X-ray diffraction X-ray fluorescence Identification of lithologic units Structural geology Description and data collection Data processing Biostratigraphy Calcareous nannofossils Radiolarians Planktonic foraminifers Geochemistry Interstitial water geochemistry for core samples Organic geochemistry Assessing drilling mud contamination Gas analysis Physical properties MSCL-W (cores and cuttings) P-wave velocity measurements on MSCL-S (cores) Magnetic susceptibility (washed cuttings) Thermal conductivity (cores) Moisture and density measurements (cores and cuttings) Dielectrics and electrical conductivity (washed cuttings) Ultrasonic P-wave velocity and anisotropy (cores) Unconfined compressive strength Shear strength measurements MSCL-I: photo image logger (archive halves) MSCL-C: color spectroscopy (archive halves) Leak-off test Paleomagnetism Laboratory instruments Discrete samples and sampling coordinates Magnetic reversal stratigraphy Cuttings-core-log-seismic integration Seismic reflection data Integration with cuttings, core, and log data X-ray computed tomography Background X-ray CT scan data usage References Figures F1. Concentric string tool. F2. Hydromechanical Anderreamer. F3. BHA configurations. F4. Silty claystone and sandstone formation. F5. Cuttings analysis flow. F6. Core analysis flow. F7. VCD graphic patterns and symbols. F8. X-ray diffractograms of standard minerals. F9. Structural geology observation sheet. F10. Modified protractor. F11. Core coordinate system. F12. Orientation of a geological plane. F13.Rake of slickenlines. F14. Orientation data spreadsheet. F15. Magnetostratigraphic and biostratigraphic events. F16. Mud extraction system. F17. Methane source classification. F18. Hydrocarbon gas classification. F19. Hydrocarbon gas background checks. F20. Dielectric mechanisms. F21. Axis orientation, working halves. F22. SRM coordinates. Tables T1. BHA summary. T2. Depth scales. T3. LWD/MWD tools. T4. geoVISION specifications. T5. sonicVISION specifications. T6. Volcanic lithologies. T7. XRD peaks. T8. Relative mineral abundance normalization factors. T9. XRF analytical conditions. T10. Average major element values. T11. Age estimates. T12. Planktonic foraminiferal events. T13. Drilling mud background concentrations. T14. Geomagnetic polarity timescale. Appendix A Evaluation of GRIND and leaching methods for extracting interstitial water as an alternative to the standard squeezing method Appendix A figures AF1. pH, alkalinity, chlorinity, SO₄^2–, and Br^–. AF2. Li, Na⁺, K⁺, Rb, Cs, NH₄⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, Sr, and Ba. AF3. B, Si, V, Mo, U, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Pb. AF4. pH, alkalinity, chlorinity, SO₄^2–, and Br^–. AF5. Li, Na⁺, K⁺, Rb, Cs, NH₄⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, Sr, and Ba. AF6. B, Si, V, Mo, U, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Pb. Appendix A tables AT1. Extraction methods. AT2. Spiked element concentrations. AT3. Water content comparison. AT4. Extracted solution chemistry. Appendix B Contamination check for mud-gas monitoring Appendix B figures BF1. Standard gas connection. BF2. Contamination check. Appendix B tables BT1. Pump settings. BT2. Gas flow rate. BT3. MCIA results. BT4. PGMS results. PDF file			Previous \| Next doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.338.102.2014 Appendix B Contamination check for mud-gas monitoring Method Standard gas We analyzed organic component gas using a GC-NGA, a MCIA, and a PGMS. The standard gas contains methane, ethane, propane, iso-butane, n-butane, and nitrogen. The concentration of each component except for nitrogen is 1%. Settings Standard gas was connected at the inlet of the mud trap (Fig. BF1). Secondary pressure of standard gas was slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. Pump settings in the mud-gas monitoring laboratory are shown in Table BT1. Devices MCIA and PGMS were used to analyze standard gases. GC-NGA was applied in the same manner as for mud-gas monitoring (measuring with FID and TCD) during the contamination check. Results Gas flow rate injected into devices During the contamination check, gas flow into the PGMS was controlled at 50 mL/min. For GC-NGA, MCIA, and the radon analyzer, gas flow rate was confirmed (Table BT2). With the pump set at 0.5 L/min, gas flows for devices except for PGMS were not high enough. Standard gas measurement To evaluate contamination, standard gas was directly sampled and measured by MCIA and PGMS. These results are shown as a red line in Figure BF2. MCIA. Standard gas was taken with a gas-tight syringe and measured in syringe injection mode. Results are shown in Table BT3. PGMS. Standard gas was taken in a sampling bag. Then, the sampling bag was connected to the PGMS and standard gas was measured. Results are shown in Table BT4. Contamination check Concentrations measured with MCIA and PGMS are shown in Figure BF2. During the contamination check, oxygen concentrations were lower than 3%, and concentrations of other components were close to certified values. Methane concentrations measured by MCIA were almost the same as the results of syringe injection (see “MCIA”; Table BT3) while sufficient gas flowed into the MCIA. Consequently, the effects of air contamination between the mud trap and pump are probably small. Top of page \| Previous \| Next