MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317745720 · doi:10.3389/feart.2022.1100951

Study on influencing factors and mechanism of pore compressibility of tight sandstone reservoir—A case study of upper carboniferous in ordos basin

2023· article· en· W4317745720 on OpenAlexaff
Yunbing Hu, Yinghai Guo, Hairuo Qing, Yundong Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersGraduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCompressibilityMacroporeGeologyQuartzMesoporous materialMineralogyPermeability (electromagnetism)Pore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringChemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of studies were carried out on 11 tight sandstone samples of Upper Carboniferous in Ordos Basin. Firstly, the deposit composition and pore structure characteristics are investigated based on analysis and experiments including cast thin section scanning electron microscope high-pressure mercury intrusion and nuclear magnetic resonance Then, combined with DP-P test, the stress-dependent permeability change and pore compressibility characteristics of sandstone reservoirs were studied to reveal the influencing factors and mechanism of reservoir pore compressibility. The detrital particles of the sandstone reservoir in the study area are mainly quartz (75.8%–89%), followed by fragments (3%–16.1%), and almost no feldspar. The content of interstitial materials is 6.5%–11.2%. The type I reservoirs mainly consist of mesopores and macropores, accounting for 60.57% and 32.84% respectively. Mesopores are dominated in Type II reservoirs, accounting for 78.98% of the total pore volume. There are almost no macropores, while a similar proportion of mesopores, micro mesopores and micropores in the type Ⅲ reservoirs. The study of pore compressibility shows that the pore compressibility coefficient decreases with the increase of effective stress, and the reduction rate shows the two-stage characteristics of rapid in the early stage and slow in the later stage. The pressure turning point is between 3 and 10 MPa. The average pore compressibility coefficient increases from type I to type Ⅲ reservoirs. The compressibility coefficient is directly proportional to the changing rate of the pore volume. The higher the content of rigid detrital particles, quartz and carbonate cement in sandstone, the smaller the pore compressibility coefficient, while the higher the content of ductile components such as soft rock fragments and clay minerals, the greater the pore compression coefficient. The pore-throat structure is closely related to the pore compressibility, reservoirs with low displacement pressure, T 2glm value, and large average pore-throat radius show lower compressibility coefficient. In addition, the compressibility coefficient of the reservoir is positively correlated with D L (dimension of large pores such as mesopores and macropores), and negatively correlated with D S (the fractal dimension of micropores and micro mesopores). It is considered the pore compression of sandstone including two stages, viscoplastic destructive deformation of ductile components for the first and then the small-scale non-ideal elastic deformation on rigid particles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207