The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gas breakthrough experiments on pelitic rocks: comparative study with N2, CO2 and CH4
Abstract
The capillary‐sealing efficiency of intermediate‐ to low‐permeable sedimentary rocks has been investigated by N 2, CO 2 and CH 4 breakthrough experiments on initially fully water‐saturated rocks of different lithological compositions. Differential gas pressures up to 20 MPa were imposed across samples of 10–20 mm thickness, and the decline of the differential pressures was monitored over time. Absolute (single‐phase) permeability coefficients (kabs), determined by steady‐state fluid flow tests, ranged between 10−22 and 10−15 m 2. Maximum effective permeabilities to the gas phase keff(max), measured after gas breakthrough at maximum gas saturation, extended from 10−26 to 10−18 m 2. Because of re‐imbibition of water into the interconnected gas‐conducting pore system, the effective permeability to the gas phase decreases with decreasing differential (capillary) pressure. At the end of the breakthrough experiments, a residual pressure difference persists, indicating the shut‐off of the gas‐conducting pore system. These pressures, referred to as the ‘minimum capillary displacement pressures’ (Pd), ranged from 0.1 up to 6.7 MPa. Correlations were established between (i) absolute and effective permeability coefficients and (ii) effective or absolute permeability and capillary displacement pressure. Results indicate systematic differences in gas breakthrough behaviour of N 2, CO 2 and CH 4, reflecting differences in wettability and interfacial tension. Additionally, a simple dynamic model for gas leakage through a capillary seal is presented, taking into account the variation of effective permeability as a function of buoyancy pressure exerted by a gas column underneath the seal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations
Rutqvist, J. (2012) · Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10706-011-9491-0 · Cited by 784
Espinoza, D. N., & Santamarina, J. C. (2010) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2009wr008634 · Cited by 531
Wettability alteration of caprock minerals by carbon dioxide
CHIQUET, P., BROSETA, D., & THIBEAU, S. (2007) · Geofluids · doi:10.1111/j.1468-8123.2007.00168.x · Cited by 498
CO2/water interfacial tensions under pressure and temperature conditions of CO2 geological storage
Chiquet, P., Daridon, J.-L., Broseta, D., & Thibeau, S. (2007) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2006.09.011 · Cited by 462
Assessment of feasible strategies for seasonal underground hydrogen storage in a saline aquifer
Sainz-Garcia, A., Abarca, E., Rubi, V., & Grandia, F. (2017) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.076 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Hildenbrand, A., Schlömer, S., Krooss, B. M., & Littke, R.
- Venue
- Geofluids
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01-14
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-80
- ISSN
- 1468-8115 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-8123
- OpenAlex
- W2170042235
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gas breakthrough experiments on pelitic rocks: comparative study with N2, CO2 and CH4. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-8123.2004.00073.x
- The paper
- Hildenbrand, A., Schlömer, S., Krooss, B. M., & Littke, R. (2004). Gas breakthrough experiments on pelitic rocks: comparative study with N2, CO2 and CH4. Geofluids. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-8123.2004.00073.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.