Crushed-Rock Vs. Full-Diameter Core Samples for Water-Saturation Determination in a Tight-Gas Siltstone Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The efficacy of crushed-rock samples vs. small plugs or full-diameter core samples for measurement of porosity, permeability, and fluid saturation is an important consideration in the evaluation of tight-gas reservoirs and shale-gas reservoirs. Crushed-rock core analysis methods originally developed for shale reservoirs are now, in some cases, being extended to low-quality tight-gas reservoirs. In this study, crushed-rock and full-diameter core measurements from two wells drilled with oil-based mud are compared to evaluate which of the two core-analysis methods is more reliable for water-saturation assessment of a major North American tight-gas siltstone play (Montney Formation, western Canada). Measurements from the studied full-diameter core samples have wide ranges of water saturation (10 to 45%) and bulk volume water (BVW) (0.5 to 2.6%). In contrast, measurements from crushed-rock samples have much narrower ranges of water saturation (10 to 20%) and BVW (0.2 to 0.7%). The lower values and limited range of water-content measurements from crushed-rock samples suggest a significant degree of artificial water loss during sample handling in the laboratory. This conclusion is supported by comparing core-measured BVW with deep-resistivity values from openhole well logs. Full-diameter BVW measurements correlate well with log resistivity, indicating they are generally representative of in-situ reservoir conditions. Crushed-rock BVW values, on the other hand, show no correlation with log resistivity. The results of this study suggest caution is warranted in the use of crushed-rock samples for water-saturation measurements of siltstones or silty shales. Failure to recognize artificial water loss from crushed-rock siltstone samples could lead to an erroneous interpretation of irreducible water saturation at in-situ reservoir conditions with potentially serious implications for resource evaluation and exploitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".