MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001847096 · doi:10.2118/174548-pa

Crushed-Rock Vs. Full-Diameter Core Samples for Water-Saturation Determination in a Tight-Gas Siltstone Play

2015· article· en· W2001847096 on OpenAlexaffabout
James M. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiltstoneSaturation (graph theory)Oil shaleCore sampleGeologyWater saturationPermeability (electromagnetism)MineralogyElectrical resistivity and conductivityTight gasGeotechnical engineeringPorosityCore (optical fiber)Petroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingMaterials scienceComposite materialGeomorphologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207