This discussion responds to the paper by Bretan et al. (2020), specifically mentioning two issues. The first has to do with open science and the accessibility of datasets so that other scientists and the public can test and re-evaluate the work done by others. The second issue we raise concerns a specific conclusion presented in the paper, namely the implied assertion that fault-rock seal is the only explanation for observed pressure differentials between two nearby wells in the Oseberg Sør Field (Norwegian North Sea). The paper by Bretan et al. (2020) tabulates thirty-eight hanging wall hydrocarbon accumulations which the authors stated are dependent on some form of fault seal. The locations and a limited amount of supporting data for seventeen of the thirty-eight accumulations are available, but the data that are available are insufficient in most cases to allow for the analysis and conclusions to be verified independently. We acknowledge that in some cases, it is impossible to publish all the data that were used because of confidentiality restrictions. However, many important data that are easy to publish are not available, and we wish to call for a more widespread release of key data when possible. The Oseberg Sør Field is the only case study from the ‘knowledge database’ that is presented with sufficient data to allow an attempt at replication of the paper’s premises. This discussion summarizes attempts to replicate the conclusions for the Oseberg Sør Field and presents some concerns with the inclusion of this field in the table of fault seal cases. The analysis of Oseberg Sør that is presented elaborates on Fristad et al. (1997) and Yielding et al. (1997). The data in these papers are summarized in Table 1. The most notable addition from Bretan et al. (2020) is a structure contour map. A conclusion of these three papers is that a fault-rock seal on Fault-1 supports a pressure differential of 7.2 bars (refer to the map in Bretan et al. (2020) for the location of Fault-1).

中文翻译：

---

关于“依赖断层岩封层的上壁圈闭的知识数据库”的讨论，伦敦地质学会，特别出版物，496, 209–222, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-157

这个讨论回应了 Bretan 等人的论文。（2020），特别提到两个问题。第一个与开放科学和数据集的可访问性有关，以便其他科学家和公众可以测试和重新评估其他人所做的工作。我们提出的第二个问题涉及论文中提出的一个具体结论，即暗示断层岩密封是在 Oseberg Sør 油田（挪威北海）附近两口井之间观察到的压力差的唯一解释。Bretan 等人的论文。(2020) 列出了 38 个上盘油气藏，作者称这些油气藏依赖于某种形式的断层密封。三十八个堆积物中的十七个的位置和数量有限的支持数据可用，但在大多数情况下，现有数据不足以独立验证分析和结论。我们承认，在某些情况下，由于保密限制，不可能公布所有使用的数据。但是，许多易于发布的重要数据无法获得，我们希望在可能的情况下更广泛地发布关键数据。Oseberg Sør Field 是来自“知识数据库”的唯一案例研究，它提供了足够的数据以允许尝试复制论文的前提。本讨论总结了复制 Oseberg Sør 油田结论的尝试，并提出了将该油田纳入断层密封案例表的一些担忧。提出的对 Oseberg Sør 的分析详细阐述了 Fristad 等人。(1997) 和 Yielding 等人。(1997)。这些论文中的数据总结在表 1 中。最值得注意的补充来自 Bretan 等人。(2020) 是结构等高线图。这三篇论文的结论是，Fault-1 上的断层岩石密封支持 7.2 bar 的压差（请参阅 Bretan 等人（2020）中关于 Fault-1 位置的地图）。