Storage and Output Flow From Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Storage and Output Flow From Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs Mohammad Rahmanian; Mohammad Rahmanian Schulich School of Engineering/University of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Nisael Solano; Nisael Solano Geoscience Department/University of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Roberto Aguilera Roberto Aguilera Schulich School of Engineering/University of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, May 2010. Paper Number: SPE-133611-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/133611-MS Published: May 27 2010 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Rahmanian, Mohammad , Solano, Nisael , and Roberto Aguilera. "Storage and Output Flow From Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs." Paper presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, May 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/133611-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Western Regional Meeting Search Advanced Search Abstract Crossplots of porosity vs. permeability from various North American basins show that there is a continuum between conventional, tight and shale gas reservoirs. This is significant as some of the key issues, particularly in shale and tight gas reservoirs, are having good estimates of storage and flow capacity. The crossplots include data from the Fayettville, Barnett, Ohio and Marcellus shales in the United States; Horn River and soft shales in Canada, tight gas Nikanassin formation in Canada and several conventional North American gas reservoirs. The data used in the crossplots have been obtained from plugs, crushed samples and drill cuttings.The results permit integration of the storage and potential gas deliverability for determining flow units and other important characteristics such as brittleness and/or ductility, hydraulic fracturing alternatives, effect of water saturation and mud filtrate; and differentiation between viscous and diffusion dominated flow. Examples of simulation at the pore throat level, from which it is possible to estimate petrophysical, rock-fluid interaction and rock mechanics properties, are presented.The storage and flow capacity in the case of stacked layers, or lateral variations of conventional, tight and shale gas formations, are discussed in detail. The data suggest that permeability determinations from crushed shale samples might be pessimistic as they do not take into account the possible presence of microfractures and pores in organic matter within shale matrix.It is concluded that crossplots of porosity vs. permeability are very powerful for distinguishing and evaluating storage and flow capacities of conventional, tight and shale gas reservoirs. The concept of flow units in shales and tight gas, and its differentiation from conventional formations, should prove powerful in future simulation work. Keywords: pore scale modeling, equation, upstream oil & gas, spe 133611, fluid dynamics, permeability, gas reservoir, reservoir, flow in porous media, aguilera Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Formation Evaluation & Management, Flow in porous media Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».