Cuttings vs cores: are cuttings a reliable predictor of caprock porosity?

IF 4.6 0 ENERGY & FUELS
Joel P. Bensing , David Misch , Lukas Skerbisch , Wolfgang Hujer , Thomas Gumpenberger
{"title":"Cuttings vs cores: are cuttings a reliable predictor of caprock porosity?","authors":"Joel P. Bensing ,&nbsp;David Misch ,&nbsp;Lukas Skerbisch ,&nbsp;Wolfgang Hujer ,&nbsp;Thomas Gumpenberger","doi":"10.1016/j.geoen.2025.214180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Repurposing depleted oil and gas fields for underground storage may play an important role in the energy transition. Existing sample materials collected during the exploration and development phases of oil and gas fields may prove useful for answering questions for the safe repurposing of depleted fields. In the case of questions for caprock integrity, drill cuttings are typically available whereas core material is often not. In this study, porosity is measured on both cutting and core samples from the caprock interval of the same well. Porosity was measured by three different methods, and in each method the cuttings show much higher porosity than the core samples. Furthermore, comparison of the data to published mudstone compaction trends (porosity-depth trends) from the basin also indicate excess porosity for the cuttings samples. Based on scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images, the cuttings have persistent dilated grain contacts (intergranular cracks) that are not observed in the core samples. This indicates the excess porosity is due to volumetric changes and damage in the cuttings samples. Based on the results of this study, cutting samples from seal rock intervals are likely to produce erroneously high porosity values, and core pieces or well-established basin-wide trends are a better predictor of seal rock porosity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100578,"journal":{"name":"Geoenergy Science and Engineering","volume":"257 ","pages":"Article 214180"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoenergy Science and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294989102500538X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Repurposing depleted oil and gas fields for underground storage may play an important role in the energy transition. Existing sample materials collected during the exploration and development phases of oil and gas fields may prove useful for answering questions for the safe repurposing of depleted fields. In the case of questions for caprock integrity, drill cuttings are typically available whereas core material is often not. In this study, porosity is measured on both cutting and core samples from the caprock interval of the same well. Porosity was measured by three different methods, and in each method the cuttings show much higher porosity than the core samples. Furthermore, comparison of the data to published mudstone compaction trends (porosity-depth trends) from the basin also indicate excess porosity for the cuttings samples. Based on scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images, the cuttings have persistent dilated grain contacts (intergranular cracks) that are not observed in the core samples. This indicates the excess porosity is due to volumetric changes and damage in the cuttings samples. Based on the results of this study, cutting samples from seal rock intervals are likely to produce erroneously high porosity values, and core pieces or well-established basin-wide trends are a better predictor of seal rock porosity.
岩屑与岩心:岩屑是盖层孔隙度的可靠预测指标吗?
将枯竭的油气田重新用于地下储存可能在能源转型中发挥重要作用。在油气田勘探和开发阶段收集的现有样品材料可能有助于回答安全重新利用枯竭油田的问题。对于盖层完整性的问题,钻屑通常是可用的,而岩心材料通常是不可用的。在本研究中,对同一口井盖层段的岩屑和岩心样品进行了孔隙度测量。用三种不同的方法测量孔隙度,每种方法的岩屑孔隙度都比岩心样品高得多。此外,将数据与盆地已公布的泥岩压实趋势(孔隙度-深度趋势)进行比较,也表明岩屑样品的孔隙度过高。根据扫描电镜(SEM)图像,岩屑具有持续扩展的晶粒接触(晶间裂纹),这在岩心样品中没有观察到。这表明多余的孔隙度是由于岩屑样品的体积变化和损坏造成的。根据本研究的结果,从密封层段的切割样品可能会产生错误的高孔隙度值,而岩心碎片或已确定的全盆地趋势是更好的密封岩石孔隙度预测指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信