Investigation of the controlling rock petrophysical factors on water phase trapping damage in tight gas reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents an investigation into the effect of rock physical parameters on water phase trapping (WPT) damage in tight gas reservoirs. The investigation involved water imbibition and drainage experiments that were performed to simulate the WPT formation process. Gas permeability was measured before and after WPT, and an empirical formula was used to determine water film thickness in order to examine the influence of WPT on effective gas flow channel. Results showed that the average water saturation of 15 tight core samples increased from 19.41% to 44.76% during water imbibition and declined to 38.72% after drainage. Increments in water saturation caused a degree of damage to gas permeability in the 36.03%‐78.10% range with an average value of 59.31%. Comparative analysis showed that the dominant factors affecting WPT were average pore throat radius followed by rock permeability and porosity. Meanwhile, calculations showed that water film thickness in the 21.22‐38.18 nm range correlated to a reduced effective gas flow channel of 20.20‐45.15 nm caused by WPT, which suggests that tight rocks with smaller pore throats may be particularly sensitive to WPT damage. The relative size of the water film filling the pore throat, trapping gas, and reducing the effective gas flow channel together with the size of the pore throat itself were found to be the most common damage mechanisms of WPT and have proven to be fundamentally beneficial in understanding the controlling factors of these damage mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".