MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912675801

Application of pore throat size distribution data to petrophysical characterization of Montney tight-gas siltstones

2018· article· en· W2912675801 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Takashi Akai, James M. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsPorosityTight gasTortuosityPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyMineralogyRelative permeabilityWettingCapillary pressurePorous mediumGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialMaterials scienceChemistryHydraulic fracturing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pore throat size distribution (PSD) is a fundamental characteristic that influences the large-scale petrophysical properties and reservoir quality of tight rocks in unconventional plays. Here, we use PSD data obtained from mercury intrusion capillary pressure (MICP) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements of Montney tight-gas siltstones to investigate the relationship of pore throat size to several other petrophysical attributes including porosity, permeability and total organic carbon (TOC) content. We find that pore size correlates positively with porosity but negatively with TOC. Additionally, we evaluate methods to estimate absolute permeability and gas relative permeability from MICP data and compare the modeled results with measured data. Estimates of absolute permeability using peak pore throat diameter in the bundle of tortuous tubes model are found to closely match measured permeability values when a tortuosity factor of 3 is applied. Estimates of relative permeability using MICP data in a modified Purcell approach are found to be comparable to measured values only if gas is considered as the wetting phase rather than the non-wetting phase. Hydrocarbon-wet reservoir conditions and the negative correlation of porosity with TOC are both consistent with the presence of solid bitumen/pyrobitumen as a pervasive pore-filling phase (Wood et al., 2018, this issue).

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)0.001
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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207