Influence of minor hydrocarbon seepage on sulfur cycling in marine subsurface sediments and its significance for hydrocarbon reservoir detection

Schnabel, Ellen; Vuillemin, Aurèle; Laczny, Cédric C.; Kunath, Benoit J.; Soares, André R.; Di Primio, Rolando; Kallmeyer, Jens; the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium,

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603

Preprints

09 Jul 2024

| 09 Jul 2024

Influence of minor hydrocarbon seepage on sulfur cycling in marine subsurface sediments and its significance for hydrocarbon reservoir detection

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Abstract. All hydrocarbon (HC) reservoirs leak to some extent. When small quantities of HCs escape offshore reservoirs and migrate through overlying organic-poor marine sediments towards the surface, these HCs are often completely metabolized by microbial activity before reaching the sediment-water interface. However, inconspicuous HC fluxes still affect the geochemistry of the surrounding sediment, thereby exerting a subtle influence on the composition and activity of microbial populations in shallow subseafloor environments.

In this study, we investigated how localized HC seepage affects microbial sulfate reduction in organic-poor sediment from the SW Barents Sea. We focused on three areas overlying known HC deposits and two reference areas of pristine seabed for comparison. The analysis of 50 gravity cores revealed significant variability in the predicted depth of sulfate depletion across sampling sites, ranging from 3 to 12 m below the seafloor. Although we observed nearly linear pore water sulfate and alkalinity profiles, we measured and modeled low rates (pmol × cm³ × d⁻¹) of sulfate reduction. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data on functional marker genes supported microbial turnover associated with active processes of sulfate reduction and anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM). Marker genes for taxonomy (i.e. SSU rRNA, rpoD), sulfate reduction (i.e. dsrAB, aprAB), methanogenesis and methanotrophy (i.e. mcrA) revealed metabolic activities by a consortium of sulfate-reducing bacteria and ANME archaea, capable of harnessing energy for cell division (i.e. ftsAZ) from HC traces diffusing through the sediment.

Overall, our study demonstrates that the gradient in pore water geochemistry, the rates of sulfate reduction processes, and the genetic features of microbial populations actively involved in sulfate-driven AOM processes are all affected by inconspicuous HC seepage. This slight HC seepage resulted in sulfate depletion at shallower depth and produced concomitant biogeochemical signatures in the shallow subsurface that enable the inference of deeply buried reservoirs.

Received: 29 May 2024 – Discussion started: 09 Jul 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1156 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1156 KB)

Supplement (2675 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Feb 2025

Influence of minor hydrocarbon seepage on sulfur cycling in marine subsurface sediments

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Alexander J. Probst, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Biogeosciences, 22, 767–784, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-767-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-767-2025, 2025

Short summary

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Andreas, P. Teske, 13 Aug 2024

The overall conclusions of this study – sulfate-dependent AOM by ANME archaea in the seep sediments, and slow organic matter remineralization at the background sites – are plausible, but the manuscript as a whole makes a somewhat improvised impression and many datasets are not presented to their best advantage. The metagenomic and transcriptomic analysis remains at a fairly generic level and does not comment on interesting results (for example the Chloroflexota dsr genes); the phylogenetic data are used to very limited effect. Much more is possible by going beyond phylum-level generalizations; it is very hard to say anything meaningful if the analysis and discussion remain stuck on this level. Phylogenies exist, and they should be used and explored.
To summarize, the manuscript needs more work and additional analyses to sharpen the conclusions.
Manuscript comments
Unpleasant surprises in the Introduction:
Line 35 and ff. The presence of marker genes reveals potential, not activity. For the latter, you would need transcriptional data.
Lines 102 to 105: Chloroflexota are sulfate reducers? Sulfate reducers (Desulfobacterota) use simple and halogenated HCs as electron acceptors (not sulfate?). The involvement of the Asgards in methane and HC degradation is also highly debatable and very likely applies to specialized lineages only; generalizations across a phylum (or superphylum, see Eme et al. 2023 Nature) are not helpful. These lines need to be rewritten and disentangled, to avoid nonsensical statements.
Line 290: Did you obtain and analyze gene transcripts (mRNA) ? Apparently yes, but this needs to be introduced more clearly.
Lines 306/7: Why are these groups not “statistically significant”? How was this tested?
Concerning figures 2 and 3, I would bring the original porewater profiles from the supplements back into the main manuscript, to demonstrate that the profiles are in fact quite linear. Or make a suitable selection from the original profiles in a nicely designed full-page figure (“Representative profiles from …”) so that the reader can see them without having to check the supplements. There is no reason to hide the real data in the supplements. After all, the central argument of this manuscript depends on these profiles!
The Metagenomics section bumps into some very interesting questions, and more or less ignores them. Line 410 ff: Are the Chloroflexota dsr genes functioning in the oxidative or reductive direction? Do they function in assimilatory or dissimilatory sulfate reduction? To which group of the Chloroflexota (a huge and highly diverse phylum!) do they belong? Assimilatory sulfate reduction is documented for Chloroflexota: Zheng R, Wang C, Sun C. 2024. Deep-sea in situ and laboratory multi-omics provide insights into the sulfur assimilation of a deep-sea Chloroflexotabacterium. mBio 15:e00004-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00004-24
The Figure 6. Carbon dioxide per se is not abundant in normally buffered seawater; DIC occurs mostly as bicarbonate and some carbonate anions, and also microbially produced CO2 will enter the carbonate equilibrium (and thus magically disappear if you look for CO2 only). This is the likely reason why the HC-rich samples and the background sediments do not show a significant difference in CO2 concentrations.
Figure 7. Are you using “alkalinity flux” in the sense of total DIC flux (CO2 plus bicarbonate plus carbonate), or are you thinking of seawater alkalinity (which includes buffering contributions from other seawater compounds as well)?
Figure 8 is unreadable. It is impossible to tell which colors belong to archaea and to bacteria (for example, ANME has the same shade of red as Nitrospirota). Try another solution, either by providing contrasting colors to bacteria and archaea (blue, green and yellow for bacteria; red and purple for archaea), or design separate plots for bacteria and archaea.
Line 470: Do you have 13C data for methane to distinguish biogenic from deeply-sourced (thermogenic) methane? Is there anything usable about Barents Sea methane in the literature?
Line 480: How does sulfide production stimulate the Asgards? This is again an example of overly generic statements that really mean nothing. Remember that the Asgards consist of multiple phylum-level lineages (Eme et al. 2023 Nature); is it likely that they will all behave in the same way when tickled by sulfide?
Line 485: What are the geochemical features that can be used to tell apart seep and background sites? The discussion always returns to sulfate in its various guises (penetration depth, SMTZ …). Low organic carbon content is discussed, not as a diagnostic feature but as a factor that helps HC detection by keeping the heterotrophic background down.
Line 500 ff: the enormous variability of SMTZ depth in continental margin sediments argues against using this criterion for identifying slow seep areas
Lines 510 ff: these discussion paragraphs come across as somewhat generic. For example, a more careful analysis of the metagenomic data could help to identify whether DIC removal or sulfate recycling via sulfide oxidation are more likely. For example, do you have dsr genes that function in the oxidative direction? These can be told apart from their reductive cousins (Dahl et al. 2005. J Bacteriol. 187(4):1392-404). Also, what is known about the redox status of these Barents Sea sediments? Oxygen, nitrate, metals – anything that could serve as an electron sink for sulfur oxidation?
A concluding note about the phylogenetic gene trees in the supplements – they are barely mentioned in the manuscript and not really used for anything. However, they could demonstrate phylogenetic affinity for particular groups and lineages within major phyla, and thus they could sharpen the discussion beyond generic phylum-only generalizations. Check carefully where exactly you are in phylospace, and do not rely on Genbank-only annotation.
--- end of review ---

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024
  
  Please see attached pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Aug 2024
Schnabel and co-authors explored the impact of minor HC seepage on sediment sulfur cycling through generating a variety of datasets, including porewater geochemistry, reaction rate calculation, metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data. I admit that considerable efforts have been made to collect so many sediment cores and produce such comprehensive datasets. However, the present paper fails to formulate an informative and sound story; it reads more like a report rather than a scientific article. With that said, the data have not been deeply digested and synthesized. As a non-expert on microbiology, I can see that the microbiological data seem not to be well utilized and explored. The other flaw lies in the very limited novel perspectives provided by this study.

Specific comments:
The title reads a little confusing. I don’t see any discussion on the implication for HC reservoir detection.

The Abstract is a little verbose; it is usually limited to one paragraph.

HC positive site? How about HC bearing site?

Line 94: The depth of SMTZ at ~100 m in the continental margin sediments is uncommon.

Line 154: what molecular analyses?

Figures 2&3: I would suggest plotting the measured data instead of the extrapolated profiles. Maybe pick several representative profiles rather than the whole dataset.

Figure 4 can be combined with Figures 2&3.

Figure 6. As CH4 and CO2 are not key data and they are subject to sampling artefact, they can be moved to the supplement.

Line 448: Higher occurrence? Weird wording. Also I don’t see higher sulfate reduction rate in the deeper sediments from Fig. 5.

Line 508: No sulfate profile in Figure 5.

Line 514: It is more likely that the lower alkalinity flux is attributed to HCO3- removal by authigenic carbonate precipitation, which can be demonstrated by Ca and Mg data if they are available.

Line 523: I think the latter hypothesis is more likely. I doubt the reoxidation of sulfide can contribute large variation of sulfate flux. My understanding is that sulfate derived from the reoxidation of sulfide is rapidly used via sulfate reduction rather than remaining in the porewater.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024
  
  Please see attached pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC2
AC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024

X

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Andreas, P. Teske, 13 Aug 2024

The overall conclusions of this study – sulfate-dependent AOM by ANME archaea in the seep sediments, and slow organic matter remineralization at the background sites – are plausible, but the manuscript as a whole makes a somewhat improvised impression and many datasets are not presented to their best advantage. The metagenomic and transcriptomic analysis remains at a fairly generic level and does not comment on interesting results (for example the Chloroflexota dsr genes); the phylogenetic data are used to very limited effect. Much more is possible by going beyond phylum-level generalizations; it is very hard to say anything meaningful if the analysis and discussion remain stuck on this level. Phylogenies exist, and they should be used and explored.
To summarize, the manuscript needs more work and additional analyses to sharpen the conclusions.
Manuscript comments
Unpleasant surprises in the Introduction:
Line 35 and ff. The presence of marker genes reveals potential, not activity. For the latter, you would need transcriptional data.
Lines 102 to 105: Chloroflexota are sulfate reducers? Sulfate reducers (Desulfobacterota) use simple and halogenated HCs as electron acceptors (not sulfate?). The involvement of the Asgards in methane and HC degradation is also highly debatable and very likely applies to specialized lineages only; generalizations across a phylum (or superphylum, see Eme et al. 2023 Nature) are not helpful. These lines need to be rewritten and disentangled, to avoid nonsensical statements.
Line 290: Did you obtain and analyze gene transcripts (mRNA) ? Apparently yes, but this needs to be introduced more clearly.
Lines 306/7: Why are these groups not “statistically significant”? How was this tested?
Concerning figures 2 and 3, I would bring the original porewater profiles from the supplements back into the main manuscript, to demonstrate that the profiles are in fact quite linear. Or make a suitable selection from the original profiles in a nicely designed full-page figure (“Representative profiles from …”) so that the reader can see them without having to check the supplements. There is no reason to hide the real data in the supplements. After all, the central argument of this manuscript depends on these profiles!
The Metagenomics section bumps into some very interesting questions, and more or less ignores them. Line 410 ff: Are the Chloroflexota dsr genes functioning in the oxidative or reductive direction? Do they function in assimilatory or dissimilatory sulfate reduction? To which group of the Chloroflexota (a huge and highly diverse phylum!) do they belong? Assimilatory sulfate reduction is documented for Chloroflexota: Zheng R, Wang C, Sun C. 2024. Deep-sea in situ and laboratory multi-omics provide insights into the sulfur assimilation of a deep-sea Chloroflexotabacterium. mBio 15:e00004-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00004-24
The Figure 6. Carbon dioxide per se is not abundant in normally buffered seawater; DIC occurs mostly as bicarbonate and some carbonate anions, and also microbially produced CO2 will enter the carbonate equilibrium (and thus magically disappear if you look for CO2 only). This is the likely reason why the HC-rich samples and the background sediments do not show a significant difference in CO2 concentrations.
Figure 7. Are you using “alkalinity flux” in the sense of total DIC flux (CO2 plus bicarbonate plus carbonate), or are you thinking of seawater alkalinity (which includes buffering contributions from other seawater compounds as well)?
Figure 8 is unreadable. It is impossible to tell which colors belong to archaea and to bacteria (for example, ANME has the same shade of red as Nitrospirota). Try another solution, either by providing contrasting colors to bacteria and archaea (blue, green and yellow for bacteria; red and purple for archaea), or design separate plots for bacteria and archaea.
Line 470: Do you have 13C data for methane to distinguish biogenic from deeply-sourced (thermogenic) methane? Is there anything usable about Barents Sea methane in the literature?
Line 480: How does sulfide production stimulate the Asgards? This is again an example of overly generic statements that really mean nothing. Remember that the Asgards consist of multiple phylum-level lineages (Eme et al. 2023 Nature); is it likely that they will all behave in the same way when tickled by sulfide?
Line 485: What are the geochemical features that can be used to tell apart seep and background sites? The discussion always returns to sulfate in its various guises (penetration depth, SMTZ …). Low organic carbon content is discussed, not as a diagnostic feature but as a factor that helps HC detection by keeping the heterotrophic background down.
Line 500 ff: the enormous variability of SMTZ depth in continental margin sediments argues against using this criterion for identifying slow seep areas
Lines 510 ff: these discussion paragraphs come across as somewhat generic. For example, a more careful analysis of the metagenomic data could help to identify whether DIC removal or sulfate recycling via sulfide oxidation are more likely. For example, do you have dsr genes that function in the oxidative direction? These can be told apart from their reductive cousins (Dahl et al. 2005. J Bacteriol. 187(4):1392-404). Also, what is known about the redox status of these Barents Sea sediments? Oxygen, nitrate, metals – anything that could serve as an electron sink for sulfur oxidation?
A concluding note about the phylogenetic gene trees in the supplements – they are barely mentioned in the manuscript and not really used for anything. However, they could demonstrate phylogenetic affinity for particular groups and lineages within major phyla, and thus they could sharpen the discussion beyond generic phylum-only generalizations. Check carefully where exactly you are in phylospace, and do not rely on Genbank-only annotation.
--- end of review ---

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024
  
  Please see attached pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Aug 2024
Schnabel and co-authors explored the impact of minor HC seepage on sediment sulfur cycling through generating a variety of datasets, including porewater geochemistry, reaction rate calculation, metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data. I admit that considerable efforts have been made to collect so many sediment cores and produce such comprehensive datasets. However, the present paper fails to formulate an informative and sound story; it reads more like a report rather than a scientific article. With that said, the data have not been deeply digested and synthesized. As a non-expert on microbiology, I can see that the microbiological data seem not to be well utilized and explored. The other flaw lies in the very limited novel perspectives provided by this study.

Specific comments:
The title reads a little confusing. I don’t see any discussion on the implication for HC reservoir detection.

The Abstract is a little verbose; it is usually limited to one paragraph.

HC positive site? How about HC bearing site?

Line 94: The depth of SMTZ at ~100 m in the continental margin sediments is uncommon.

Line 154: what molecular analyses?

Figures 2&3: I would suggest plotting the measured data instead of the extrapolated profiles. Maybe pick several representative profiles rather than the whole dataset.

Figure 4 can be combined with Figures 2&3.

Figure 6. As CH4 and CO2 are not key data and they are subject to sampling artefact, they can be moved to the supplement.

Line 448: Higher occurrence? Weird wording. Also I don’t see higher sulfate reduction rate in the deeper sediments from Fig. 5.

Line 508: No sulfate profile in Figure 5.

Line 514: It is more likely that the lower alkalinity flux is attributed to HCO3- removal by authigenic carbonate precipitation, which can be demonstrated by Ca and Mg data if they are available.

Line 523: I think the latter hypothesis is more likely. I doubt the reoxidation of sulfide can contribute large variation of sulfate flux. My understanding is that sulfate derived from the reoxidation of sulfide is rapidly used via sulfate reduction rather than remaining in the porewater.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024
  
  Please see attached pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC2
AC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1603', Jens Kallmeyer, 04 Oct 2024

X

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (08 Oct 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Jens Kallmeyer on behalf of the Authors (09 Oct 2024) Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Anna Glados (16 Oct 2024) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Oct 2024) by Tina Treude

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Oct 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 Nov 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (18 Nov 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments

The manuscript by Schnabel et al. presents an impressive set of pore-water data and sulfate reduction rates as well as metagenomic and metascriptomic data for 50 (40?) sediment cores/gravity cores retrieved from the SW Barents Sea shelf. The objectives of the study are to assess how the magnitude of upward methane/hydrocarbon flux impacts the geochemistry, biogeochemical processes – namely microbial sulfate reduction - and microbial communities in the surface and subsurface sediments.

The manuscript is definitely of interest for the readers of Biogeosciences and generally well-written. However, there are several issues that need to be specified and described much more precisely – in particular the terms „seepage“ and „HC reservoir“. There are also several statements and concepts presented in the manuscript that are not correct as given (e.g. statements about seismics). The authors should definitely define the term „seepage“ and say what they mean when they speak of „seepage“. What about the activity/episodicity of any potential seepage? Please, precisely specify and distinguish whether you speak of transport of methane by molecular diffusion (as is obviously the case at most of your sites) or fluid seepage – i.e. migration of fluids and or free gas bubbles through the pore space of the sediments at rates exceeding those of molecular diffusion. In other words, if upward methane transport occurs in the form of molecular diffusion – as seems to be the case at most of your study sites – I would not speak of seepage. I would therefore suggest to more generally speak of upward methane „fluxes“ throughout the manuscript. The different intensities/magnitudes of methane upward flux then determine the depth position of the SMT and the magnitude of SR as well as the type of microbial community/ies.

I also did not fully understand which type of „HC reservoir“ precisely you speak of. This is also not clear from Chapter 2. Do you mean free gas in the deeper subsurface? What about gas hydrates? The potential role of the presence of gas hydrates in the subsurface – as an intermediate methane reservouir - has not been mentioned and discussed at all. There are numerous studies that have demonstrated that during active seepage events methane is transported upwards from deeper sources (mostly in the form of free gas) and becomes trapped in the form of gas hydrates at shallower sediment depth (if positioned within the gas hydrate stability zone). After these gas hydrate deposits have formed they give off methane, which diffuses upward towards the sediment surface and leads to the establishment of an SMT where AOM consumes most of the upward diffusing methane (e.g., Dickens, 2001, GCA; Lapham et al., 2010, EPSL). The methane gradient – thus magnitude of upward flux – and depth position oft he SMT then depends on the depth position of the gas hydrates.

Moreover, the referencing to previous relevant studies is also not sufficient. In the past 20 to 25 years numerous studies have been performed to investigate the regional variability of upward methane fluxes. There are for example several studies by the group of Gerald Dickens that have investigated differences in upward methane fluxes – for example on Blake Ridge and in other ocean areas. Also the impact that upward methane fluxes and in particular of AOM on the geochemical composition of pore waters and sediments – including mineral dissolution (e.g. magnetite) and precipitation of authigenic minerals – including carbonates, barite, Fe sulfides/rock magnetic properties is mostly missing (see suggestions given below). There are also several previous studies that have correlated pore-water profiles with micobial communities (e.g. Oni et al., 2005, Frontiers Microbiol.; Wunder et al., 2021, ISME; Schnakenberg et al., 2021, Frontiers Microbiol.).

It would also be good to have a zoom-in map of the study area in order to have an idea of the bathymetry and seafloor topography. The insert shown given in Fig. 1 b is not very informative. It would be good to see seafloor topography/bathymetry in ordert o assess whether there are typical seep seafloor features of methane seepage such as pockmarks and to find out at which water depth the study sites are located (also with respect to judging whether the sites lie within the gas hydrate stability or not).

Specific comments

L. 24 and throughout the manuscript: The term „inconspicuous“ is rather unusual in this context. Do you mean „low“ upward fluxes?

L. 30 Do you mean constant/no depletion instead of „linear“

L. 40: What precisely do you mean with „inconspicuous HC seepage“ ? I would rather speak of low methane „fluxes“. i.e. diffusive flux.

L. 41: „shallower“ than what precisely?!

L. 46: What precisely is a „minor“ seep ?

L. 48: The effect of upward diffusion of methane and resulting AOM on sediment geochemistry has been shown and reported by numerous studies: including Riedinger et al. – and Henkel et al. etc.

Ls. 49 to 51: These sentences are unclear. What precisely is a „distal manifestation“? „seabed“? I guess you mean sediment surface, right?!

L. 52: I guess you mean „geochemical“ instead of geological, right?!

L. 54 ff.: The statement – as it stands here – is not correct. It is not methane-containing fluids that produce seismic signals but the presence of free gas that induces an impedance contrast that is registered by seismics. Fluids of high dissolved methane concertrations are not detectable by seismic approaches. Please, rephrase this more precisely throughout the manuscript.

L. 58 ff.: Strictly speaking, it is not the flux of methane itself but the consumption of methane/HCs in the process of AOM that impacts the geochemical composition of pore-waters and sediments. This has already been demonstrated by numerous studies, some of which should definitely also be refered to/cited here. So, in addition to what you describe/refer to in this part of the introduction you should at leasdt also mention a few of the most prominent impacts of upward methane flux and the resulting oxidation of methane by sulfate (AOM) . namely the precipitation of authigenic carbonates and barite (e.g. studies by Bohrmann, Torres, etc.) and also the dissolution of magnetite producing distinct minima in magnetic susceptibility (e.g. Riedinger et al., 2005; März et al., 2008).

L. 62/63: I also do not agree with this statement …. Methane formation is extremely widespread in continental margin sediments – and in most cases is not associated with underlying HC reservoirs but rather formed in situ by biogenic processes.

L. 70: This is not entirely true … rather depends where you are. There are also more recent studies on the role of sulfate reduction (e.g. Bowles et al., 2014).

L. 90: Please, also give reference to other relevant previous studies – e.g. Niewöhner et al. (1998; GCA), Treude et al.; Riedinger et al. (2005, 2014, 2017), März et al. (2008), Henkel et al. (2012; GCA).

L. 113: This statement contradicts that in the abstract. Here you speak of 40 gravity cores while in the Abstract you mention 50 gravity cores.

Figure 1: The zoom-in in Fig 1b is not informative at all. It would be good to have a map showing the bathymetry/seafloor topography. The map also does not indicate where the potential „HC reservoirs“ are found in the deeper subsurface.

Figure 2 is very difficult to read and understand. What precisely is shown in Figs, 2a to 2d? These are definitely not measured pore-water profiles … are these modelled profiles or gradients? Please, specify and overhaul this figure as well as the figure caption.
The title of this figure says „sulfite“ ?! I guess you mean sulfide, correct?!

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Nov 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Jens Kallmeyer on behalf of the Authors (28 Nov 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Dec 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Jens Kallmeyer on behalf of the Authors (13 Dec 2024) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Feb 2025

Influence of minor hydrocarbon seepage on sulfur cycling in marine subsurface sediments

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Alexander J. Probst, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Biogeosciences, 22, 767–784, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-767-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-767-2025, 2025

Short summary

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1603-supplement

Ellen Schnabel, Aurèle Vuillemin, Cédric C. Laczny, Benoit J. Kunath, André R. Soares, Rolando Di Primio, Jens Kallmeyer, and the PROSPECTOMICS Consortium

Viewed

Total article views: 771 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
250	98	423	771	48	18	19

HTML: 250
PDF: 98
XML: 423
Total: 771
Supplement: 48
BibTeX: 18
EndNote: 19

Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jul 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2024	88	30	12	130
Aug 2024	76	25	8	109
Sep 2024	13	9	0	22
Oct 2024	28	7	4	39
Nov 2024	13	130	143
Dec 2024	8	19	148	175
Jan 2025	15	8	120	143
Feb 2025	9	1	10

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jul 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2024	88	30	12	130
Aug 2024	76	25	8	109
Sep 2024	13	9	0	22
Oct 2024	28	7	4	39
Nov 2024	13	130	143
Dec 2024	8	19	148	175
Jan 2025	15	8	120	143
Feb 2025	9	1	10

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 751 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 751 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 12 Feb 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1156 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study analyzed marine sediment samples from areas with and without minimal hydrocarbon seepage from reservoirs underneath. Depth profiles of dissolved chemical components in the pore water as well as molecular biological data revealed differences in microbial community composition and activity. These results indicate that even minor hydrocarbon seepage affects sedimentary biogeochemical cycling in marine sediments, potentially providing a new tool for detection of hydrocarbon reservoirs.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0