Gas relative permeability and its modeling in tight and ultra-tight porous rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gas relative permeability, krg, is a key parameter to determine gas production in unconventional reservoirs. Several theoretical approaches were proposed to study gas relative permeability in tight and ultra-tight porous rocks. Some models are based on a “bundle of capillary tubes” concept. Some others were developed based upon a combination of universal scaling laws from percolation theory and the effective-medium approximation (EMA). Although applications from the EMA have been successfully used to estimate single-phase permeability in permeable media (Ghanbarian et al., 2017; Ghanbarian and Javadpour, 2017), non-universal scaling from the EMA has never been invoked to model gas relative permeability in tight and/or ultra-tight porous rocks. In this study, it was assumed that pore-throat sizes follow the log-normal distribution. It was further assumed that gas transport in shales is mainly controlled by molecular and hydraulic flow, two mechanisms contributing in parallel. Using the EMA, effective pore-throat radii, effective conductances, and gas relative permeabilities were determined at various gas saturations. Comparison with three-dimensional pore-network simulations showed that the proposed krg model estimated gas relative permeability accurately. We also compared our model with experimental data reported in Yassin et al. (2016) including three Montney tight gas siltstone samples from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Results showed that our model estimated krg reasonably well, although it slightly overestimated krg. This might be because the fitted log-normal probability density function underestimated the probability of small pore-throat sizes. References Ghanbarian, B., & Javadpour, F. (2017). Upscaling pore pressure‐dependent gas permeability in shales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(4), 2541-2552. Ghanbarian, B., Torres-Verdin, C., Lake, L. W., & Marder, M. P. (2017). Upscaling gas permeability in tight-gas sandstones. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. New Orleans LA. Yassin, M. R., Dehghanpour, H., Wood, J., & Lan, Q. (2016). A theory for relative permeability of unconventional rocks with dual-wettability pore network. SPE Journal, 21(06), 1970-1980.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".