Klinkenberg-Corrected Permeability Measurements in Tight Gas Sands: Steady-State Versus Unsteady-State Techniques
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents results from a laboratory study comparing Klinkenberg-corrected permeability measurements in tight gas sands using both a conventional steady-state technique and two commercially-available unsteady-state permeameters. We also investigated the effects of various rate and pressure testing conditions on steady-state flow measurements. Our study shows the unsteady-state technique consistently overestimates the steady-state permeabilities, even when the steady-state measurements are corrected for gas slippage and inertial effects. The differences are most significant for permeabilities less than about 0.01 md. We validated the steady-state Klinkenberg-corrected permeabilities with liquid permeabilities measured using both brine and kerosene. Although gas slippage effects are more pronounced with helium than with nitrogen, we also confirmed the steady-state results using two different gases. Moreover, we show results are similar for both constant backpressure and constant mass flow rate test conditions. Finally, our study illustrates the importance of using a finite backpressure to reduce non-Darcy flow effects, particularly for ultra low-permeability samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it