MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044559135 · doi:10.2118/162665-ms

Non-Darcy Flow in Shale Nanopores: Do We Have a Final Answer?

2012· article· en· W2044559135 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsSlippagePermeability (electromagnetism)Knudsen diffusionDarcy's lawKnudsen numberReal gasPetroleum engineeringOil shaleTight gasPorous mediumMechanicsUnconventional oilGeologyPorosityMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryHydraulic fracturingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many shale gas and ultra-low permeability tight gas reservoirs can have matrix permeability values in the range of tens to hundreds of nanodarcies. The ultra-fine pore structure of these rocks can cause violation of the basic assumptions behind usage of Darcy’s law. Depending on a combination of P-T conditions, pore structure and gas properties, non-Darcy flow mechanisms such as Knudsen diffusion and/or gas slippage effects could be important. Quantifying these effects is critical for correcting laboratory permeability measurements to obtain true (intrinsic) matrix permeability; several authors have also noted that corrections for these effects may also be important when analyzing field data. In order to make corrections for non-Darcy flow, numerous authors have quantified these effects as an apparent permeability that changes as a function of Knudsen number or gas pressure. There are now many correlations available for quantifying apparent permeability changes, but it is not known how much impact they really have on the long term production performance of shale gas wells. In this work, we summarize the various methods for quantifying non-Darcy flow in unconventional gas reservoirs, and compare the apparent permeability and slippage factor predictions for all the models we have compiled. For determining the impact of the model predictions on well performance, we incorporate the apparent permeability predictions of each model into a numerical simulator, and compare rate-time and cumulative gas-time forecasts for each scenario. The importance of dual porosity (which is usually assumed necessary for shale gas) is also examined. The results of this work are important in several aspects. First, the differences between various formulations of the apparent matrix permeability in shales are illustrated. Secondly, the impact of non-Darcy effects on history matching and recovery forecasting is demonstrated. Finally, it is shown that there may not be a need for dual porosity modeling in certain cases. The results of this study will be important to professionals involved in laboratory measurement of matrix permeability in unconventional gas reservoirs, modeling well performance, and forecasting shale gas recovery.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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