MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140962967 · doi:10.1306/10171111052

Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry, pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units

2012· article· en· W2140962967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gareth Chalmers, R.M. Bustin, Ian Power

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPorosimetryScanning electron microscopeGas pycnometerMineralogyOil shaleField electron emissionTransmission electron microscopyCharacterization (materials science)Shale gasPorosityMaterials scienceComposite materialElectronNanotechnologyGeotechnical engineeringPorous mediumPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The nanometer-scaled pore systems of gas shale reservoirs were investigated from the Barnett, Marcellus, Woodford, and Haynesville gas shales in the United States and the Doig Formation of northeastern British Columbia, Canada. The purpose of this article is to provide awareness of the nature and variability in pore structures within gas shales and not to provide a representative evaluation on the previously mentioned North American reservoirs. To understand the pore system of these rocks, the total porosity, pore-size distribution, surface area, organic geochemistry, mineralogy, and image analyses by electron microscopy were performed. Total porosity from helium pycnometry ranges between 2.5 and 6.6%. Total organic carbon content ranges between 0.7 and 6.8 wt. %, and vitrinite reflectance measured between 1.45 and 2.37%. The gas shales in the United States are clay and quartz rich, with the Doig Formation samples being quartz and carbonate rich and clay poor. Higher porosity samples have higher values because of a greater abundance of mesopores compared with lower porosity samples. With decreasing total porosity, micropore volumes relatively increase whereas the sum of mesopores and macropore volumes decrease. Focused ion beam milling, field emission scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy provide high-resolution (∼5 nm) images of pore distribution and geometries. Image analysis provides a visual appreciation of pore systems in gas shale reservoirs but is not a statistically valid method to evaluate gas shale reservoirs. Macropores and mesopores are observed as either intergranular porosity or are confined to kerogen-rich aggregates and show no preferred orientation or align parallel with the laminae of the shale. Networks of mesopores are observed to connect with the larger macropores within the kerogen-rich aggregates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1,493
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207