Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The determination of the true residual gas saturation in gas reservoirs is addressed in this paper. It is customarily assumed that when a gas reservoir is overlaying an aquifer, water will imbibe into the gas-saturated zone with the onset of gas production. The process of gas displacement by water will be forced imbibition in areas of high drawdown and spontaneous imbibition in the areas of low drawdown. It is further assumed that in the bulk of the reservoir spontaneous imbibition will prevail and that the reservoir is water-wet. A final assumption is that the gas behaves as an incompressible fluid. All these assumptions are challenged in this paper. The topics of imbibition and wetting phase film flow are reviewed along with a brief summary of the work on the determination of residual gas saturation to date. Furthermore, a series of experiments are presented whereby it is demonstrated that the residual gas saturation obtained by a short imbibition test is not necessarily the correct residual gas saturation. Imbibition tests by different methods yield very different results, while saturation history and core cleaning also seem to have a strong effect on the determination of residual gas saturation. In some cases, it was found that the residual gas by spontaneous imbibition was unreasonably high. This was attributed to weak wetting conditions of the core (no water "pull" by imbibition). It is expected that this work will shed some new light in an old but not so well understood topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".