MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161942952 · doi:10.2523/iptc-10994-ms

A Modified Purcell/Burdine Model for Estimating Absolute Permeability from Mercury-Injection Capillary Pressure Data

2005· article· en· W2161942952 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsCapillary pressureRelative permeabilityWettingPermeability (electromagnetism)Saturation (graph theory)PorosityCapillary actionMineralogyGeologyPorous mediumPetroleum reservoirMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringMaterials sciencePetroleum engineeringChemistryMathematicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the development and validation of a new semi-analytical, statistically-derived model for estimating absolute permeability from mercury-injection capillary pressure data. The foundations of our new model are the classic Purcell and Burdine equations which relate absolute permeability to capillary-pressure/wetting-phase-saturation properties. We also incorporate characteristic capillary pres-sure behavior using the Brooks-Corey power-law model. The final form of our proposed model allows us to compute absolute permeability as a function of effective porosity, irreducible wetting phase saturation, displacement or threshold pressure, and basic pore size characteristics. We tested and correlated our model using 89 sets of mercury-injection (Hg-air) capillary pressure data – including core samples from both carbonate and sandstone lithologies. In summary, we found that our model consistently yields accurate results for a wide range of rock properties. Introduction The fundamental relationships between pore size/geometry and basic rock properties (e.g., effective porosity, absolute permeability, etc.) are well-documented in the petroleum and petrophysics literature. Moreover, the literature is replete with models for estimating or predicting permeability from basic rock properties. Nelson4 has developed a comprehensive re-view of the literature, and he has identified five major categories of permeability models based on the physical rock attributes used in the model development:The five major model categories specified by Nelson are:Petrophysical models,Models based on grain size and mineralogy,Models based on surface area and water saturation,Well log models, andModels based on basic rock pore dimensions. In this paper, we focus on models that incorporate basic rock pore characteristics and dimensions, and specifically, pore characteristics as determined from capillary pressure data. Nelson has further classified these particular models as direct types since they not only relate rock permeability directly to the pore dimensions and connectivity, but also incorporate fundamental theories of fluid flow through porous media. Most of these direct methods – especially the early models developed in the 1940s and 1950s – use mercury-injection capillary pressure data to quantify the rock pore and pore throat characteristics.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.223 · 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