Sandstone vs. carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-permeability relationships: Discussion*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent article by Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005) presents a useful compilation of porosity, permeability, lithology, geothermal gradients, and preuplift depths for the Alberta basin in Canada and other petroleum reservoirs around the world. The authors state that “the relative paucity of low-porosity (0–8%) siliciclastic reservoirs at all depths compared with carbonates may reflect the most common occurrence of fractures in carbonates and the effectiveness of these fractures for facilitating economic flow rates in low-porosity rock” (Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005, p. 435). One purpose of this discussion is to present data for 5915 reservoirs that tend to support the Ehrenberg and Nadeau statement. They conclude that their results “can serve as a general exploration guide for the probability of encountering the desired porosity and permeability at a specified depth in a frontier area” (Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005, p. 443). A second purpose of this discussion is to show a possible extension of their data for calculating pore-throat apertures ( r p35) and estimating the probability of encountering the desired oil rate in a given area. Figure 1 shows a crossplot of average porosity versus weighted mean oil recovery for 5915 pools in Alberta (adapted from Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers (CIM), 2004, p. 282). The recoveries apply to conventional crude oil. A wide variation in porosities and recoveries exists. Included in this plot are carbonates and clastics. The dashed line labeled “Max.,” drawn following the …
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".