MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008463997 · doi:10.2118/167047-ms

Laboratory Permeability and Diffusivity Measurements of Unconventional Reservoirs: Useless or Full of Information? A Montney Example from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2013· article· en· W2008463997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Albert Cui, Ron Brezovski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyPetrophysicsSedimentary rockPetroleum engineeringPetroleum reservoirPorosityOil shalePetrologyFormation evaluationGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Permeability is one of the most critical parameters characterizing unconventional (shale or tight) gas and oil reservoirs for resource evaluation and exploitation. Permeability is also perhaps the most difficult parameter to be accurately characterized because it is not just a single number but a complicate property with attributes that depend on many factors (namely sampling or testing scale, pore shape and size and distribution, different transport mechanisms, different test fluids, pore pressure, effective stress, and even temperature). Laboratory permeability measurements are mainly conducted on cores or smaller samples. The size and scale of laboratory measurements are hence severely limited as compared to the meters or kilometers scale of exploration or producing fields. Even in the scale of centimeters or less, for the same core samples, laboratory measurements likely yield variable permeability spanning several orders of magnitudes, leading to seemingly useless laboratory permeability for field applications. In this study, using samples from the Montney Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin as an example, we first present contrasting laboratory permeability measurements with different methods or experimental conditions. Explanations to the seemingly contradictory permeability measurements are then provided in context of different transport modes in highly heterogeneous microporous unconventional reservoir rocks, highlighting that the contrast laboratory measurements are not useless but full of information for understanding the complex characteristics of microporous unconventional rocks. Appropriate experiments to determine the appropriate permeability and their application to field problems are also discussed, which is helpful for petroleum geologists and engineers to better understand the unique permeability system of unconventional reservoirs and hence to make optimal decisions for successful unconventional resource 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207