MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2012065650 · doi:10.2118/171534-ms

Improved Understanding of Gas/Liquid Transport in Unconventional Shales of the Eagle Ford USA, Montney Canada, and REM Australia Through Micromorphological and Laboratory Analyses of Rock Fabric and Pore Sizes

2014· article· en· W2012065650 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raphael A.J. Wüst, Albert Cui, Brent R. Nassichuk, Ron Brezovski, Eric Aidan Letham, R.M. Bustin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiltstoneGeologySiliciclasticDiagenesisSedimentary rockEagleGeochemistryTight gasMineralogyPetrologySedimentary depositional environmentHydraulic fracturingGeomorphologyFaciesPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unconventional self-sourced sedimentary rocks of three important but contrasting plays, the USA (Eagle Ford), Canada (Montney) and Australia (Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree, REM) are investigated for rock fabric, pore size and pore networks to better understand gas/liquid flow potentials. The Eagle Ford Shale contains marine carbonate mudstones, the Montney Formation has marine siliciclastic siltstone/mudstones and the REM has lacustrine siliciclastic siltstone/shales. Microscopic analysis of the different rock types show marked differences in the rock texture which is a key element for both gas/fluid flow as well as rock behavior during and after hydraulic fracturing. The samples in this study show high variability in detrital grains, diagenetic minerals as well as organic matter and clay mineral distribution. It is hypothesized that abundant clay minerals in these rocks reflect diagenetic alteration and neoformation during burial which then influence gas and liquid flow paths. During and after well stimulations, these and other clay-size minerals may contribute to fines migration. Total mercury and He-porosity data of these contrasting plays vary and comparisons with micrographic investigations show that the amount of pore space is often a function of the rocks diagenetic pathways which is elaborated in this study. Mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) analysis shows that the majority of the pore throats are <20–30 nm in size with few larger pore throats present. However, both Montney and Eagle Ford samples have common large (20 to >400 nm) individual pores observed using Scanning Electron microscopy (SEM). These may be isolated or only connected through narrow pore-throats to the primary pore network and thus mercury access is limited during the MICP tests even under higher pressure conditions. MICP is limited to the detection of pore throats which are >3 nm in diameter and often underestimates the total porosity in tight rocks. Helium however can penetrate through narrow pore throats and yields different, higher porosity data compared to MICP. In this study, we present and compare various porosity methods in order to define the pore structure and connectivity which are important for both storage and transport of gas/liquid hydrocarbons in three endmembers of tight rock plays. Systematic comparisons between the three shale plays highlight the importance of properly characterizing tight rocks with appropriate methods.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→