4.7 Article

Gas hydrate saturations estimated from pore- and fracture-filling gas hydrate reservoirs in the Qilian Mountain permafrost, China

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-16531-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Special Research Fund (Gas Hydrate Resource Exploration and Production Testing Project) [GZHL20110313]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41604086, 41674080]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [20161BAB211029]
  4. Education Department Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [GJJ150574]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate calculation of gas hydrate saturation is an important aspect of gas hydrate resource evaluation. The effective medium theory (EMT model), the velocity model based on two-phase medium theory (TPT model), and the two component laminated media model (TCLM model), are adopted to investigate the characteristics of acoustic velocity and gas hydrate saturation of pore-and fracturefilling reservoirs in the Qilian Mountain permafrost, China. The compressional wave (P-wave) velocity simulated by the EMT model is more consistent with actual log data than the TPT model in the porefilling reservoir. The range of the gas hydrate saturation of the typical pore-filling reservoir in hole DKXX-13 is 13.0 similar to 85.0%, and the average value of the gas hydrate saturation is 61.9%, which is in accordance with the results by the standard Archie equation and actual core test. The P-wave phase velocity simulated by the TCLM model can be transformed directly into the P-wave transverse velocity in a fracture-filling reservoir. The range of the gas hydrate saturation of the typical fracture-filling reservoir in hole DKXX-19 is 14.1 similar to 89.9%, and the average value of the gas hydrate saturation is 69.4%, which is in accordance with actual core test results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available