Guestimating reserves: A matter of techniques?

Abstract

Disparities in preparation techniques are fundamental to our interpretation of poroperm readings from long established tables. Given that analytical scanning electron microscope images are used to complement cathodoluminescence light microscope petrography, isotope chemistry and petrophysical methods etc as background information to the calculation of poroperm predictability in probability plots, it follows that the preparation of these images deserves careful scrutiny. To this end reef materials sampled from contrasting settings are used as the basis of demonstration. Non-standardized preparation techniques that are standards for other uses are used to calibrate results against each other. They clearly demonstrate the efficacy of freon as a dust remover but also as a remover of dried fines of bacterial proportions.

By or outsourcing or delegating analytical preparations to service units that are not dedicated to basic research the basic elemental counts that are derived from x-ray systems may be consistent while the visual imagery yields major discrepancies. This is central to the argument that we can be deluded into accepting the implied influences of microbial activity on scant evidence. Where comparative treatments were applied to agglutinating polychaete worm fabrics from the intertidal the resultant images could be presented as either the products of deep burial or shallow marine depending on the preparation technique used.