MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361853092 · doi:10.2118/0223-0081-jpt

Pore-Pressure-Prediction Model Investigates Hydrocarbon Generation

2023· article· en· W4361853092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverpressureGeologyOil shalePore water pressurePetroleum engineeringPython (programming language)PetrologyGeotechnical engineeringComputer sciencePaleontologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

_ This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper URTeC 2021-5410, “A New Pore-Pressure-Prediction Model for Naturally Fractured Shales and Stacked Plays: The Effect of Active Hydrocarbon Generation—A Powder River Basin Case Study,” by Daniel Orozco and Roberto Aguilera, SPE, University of Calgary. The paper has not been peer reviewed. _ The authors introduce a physics-based method for explicit pore-pressure prediction in naturally fractured shale petroleum reservoirs. Failing to account for the actual cause of overpressure leads to underestimation of the pore pressure at depth. This is particularly important in shales that have not yet reached pressure equilibrium because of fluid expansion caused by currently active or recent-in-geologic-time hydrocarbon generation. Background The work flow is tested with data from the Powder River Basin, but it should be extendable to other shales worldwide. The approach should prove particularly useful in those undeveloped plays with limited or no regional experience, as in the case of the Cretaceous La Luna shale in Colombia. The computer code for running the pore-pressure work flow described in the complete paper was written in open-source Python programming language. The script makes extensive usage of different Python libraries. The complete paper includes a substantive section devoted to a discussion of hydrocarbon generation as an overpressure mechanism in shales. Overpressure by fluid expansion in low-permeability rocks occurs when the volume of pore fluids increases with little change in porosity and at a rate that does not allow the effective dissipation of fluids. The fluid-expansion mechanisms include clay dehydration, smectite-illite transformation, hydrocarbon maturation, and oil cracking. The magnitude of overpressure from fluid expansion depends on the rate of volume change, which is rather slow for the burial rates and temperature gradients observed in most basins. It follows that, in unconventional basins that encompass source rocks with high organic content and very low matrix permeabilities, the maturation of kerogen to oil and gas and oil cracking have the potential to create high-magnitude overpressure. An important aspect of overpressuring caused by hydrocarbon generation is that it has the potential to create natural “hydraulic” fractures. The most-likely explanation for the basinwide occurrence of overpressuring in the Rocky Mountains is the thermal generation of oil and gas. Role of the Biot Coefficient Researchers have demonstrated that the Biot coefficient is equal to the quotient of the change in permeability with pore pressure (at constant confining pressure) over the change in permeability with confining pressure (at constant pore pressure). The authors write that previous work indicates that any deformations in fluid-saturated rocks are exclusively the result of variations on the Biot’s (not Terzaghi’s) effective stress. Because effective stress governs rock deformation, it follows that, whatever the mechanism causing the rock deformation, it should be accounted for and properly explained by the inclusion of the appropriate in-situ Biot coefficient. This statement is the cornerstone of the pore-pressure-prediction work flow.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207