MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141657015 · doi:10.1306/11230404071

Sandstone vs. carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-permeability relationships

2005· article· en· W2141657015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen N. Ehrenberg, Paul Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPorosityPermeability (electromagnetism)CarbonatePetroleumPetroleum reservoirEffective porosityPetrologyGeochemistryCarbonate rockGeomorphologyMineralogyGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringSedimentary rockPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plots are presented comparing average porosity vs. depth for 30,122 siliciclastic petroleum reservoirs and 10,481 carbonate petroleum reservoirs covering all petroleum-producing countries except Canada. However, separate plots cover 5534 siliciclastic and 2830 carbonate reservoirs of the Alberta basin in Canada. Average permeability vs. average porosity is shown for the non-Canadian reservoirs. Key similarities and differences between sandstones and carbonates are noted, and implications are discussed regarding the dominant factors controlling reservoir quality in each lithology. Trends of steadily decreasing median and maximum porosity with increasing depth reflect burial diagenetic porosity loss in response to increasing thermal exposure with depth. These trends seem inconsistent with the suggestions that both sandstones and carbonates commonly increase in porosity by dissolution during deeper burial. Carbonate reservoirs have lower values of median and maximum porosity for a given burial depth, probably because of greater chemical reactivity of carbonate minerals relative to quartz and the resulting lower resistance to chemical compaction and associated cementation. Relative paucity of low-porosity (0–8%) siliciclastic reservoirs at all depths compared with carbonates may reflect the more common occurrence of fractures in carbonates and the effectiveness of these fractures for facilitating economic flow rates in low-porosity rock. Overall, carbonate reservoirs do not have lower permeability for a given porosity compared with sandstones but do have strikingly lower proportions of both high-porosity and high-permeability values. The data presented can serve as a general guide for the distribution of reservoir quality that can reasonably be expected in exploration wells drilled to any given depth in the absence of detailed geologic information, such as burial and thermal history.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations474
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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