A Comparative Study of Laboratory Techniques for Measuring Capillary Pressures in Tight Gas Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents results from a laboratory study comparing capillary pressure measurement techniques for tight gas sands. Included in our evaluation are the more traditional high-speed centrifuge and high-pressure mercury injection methods as well as the less conventional high-pressure porous plate and vapor desorption techniques. The results of our study show significant differences between the mercury injection data and composite capillary pressure curves constructed with data from the other three methods. Consequently, we have concluded that high-pressure mercury injection can be used to quantify pore size distribution, but often inaccurately characterizes capillary pressures, particularly at the irreducible water saturation. Moreover, our study suggests that a composite capillary pressure curve constructed from a combination of the vapor desorption data for the low water saturation range and high-speed centrifuge or high-pressure porous plate data for the high saturation range provides the most accurate capillary pressures for tight gas sands.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".