Articles | Volume 13, issue 3
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Matrix gas flow through “impermeable” rocks – shales and tight sandstone
- Final revised paper (published on 24 Mar 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 22 Nov 2021)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
CC1: 'Comment on se-2021-140', Christian David, 20 Dec 2021
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Ernest H. Rutter, 06 Jan 2022
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Christian David, 06 Jan 2022
- AC3: 'Reply on CC2', Ernest H. Rutter, 06 Jan 2022
- CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Christian David, 06 Jan 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Ernest H. Rutter, 06 Jan 2022
RC1: 'Comment on se-2021-140', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ernest H. Rutter, 06 Jan 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Ernest H. Rutter on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (08 Feb 2022) by Florian Fusseis
ED: Publish as is (14 Feb 2022) by Joachim Gottsmann(Executive Editor)
AR by Ernest H. Rutter on behalf of the Authors (18 Feb 2022)  Author's response Manuscript
Review of the paper « Matrix gas flow through ‘impermeable’ rocks – shales and tight sandstone »
by E. Rutter, J. Mecklenburgh and Y. Bashir.
This is a very interesting paper focusing on the effect of effective pressure on the permeability and the deformation of tight rocks, two shales and one tight sandstone. The pressure sensitivity of the selected rocks were interpreted through poroelasticity theory, and the link with the expected evolution of microstructures in these tight rocks is tentatively given. The authors propose a simple model made of a bundle of capillary tubes with elliptical cross-sections to account for their observations on the permeability decrease with pressure. Another interesting outcome of this work is the discussion on the effective pressure coefficients, with a comparison between the “m” value used in poroelasticity (the so-called Biot coefficient) and the “n” value derived from permeability vs. pressure evolution. It turns out that one of the rocks, the Bowland shale, behaves quite differently compared to the other rocks, and this is explained by strong contrasts in the microstructures and mineralogical content.
When reading the paper, it is clear that the data obtained by the authors are of very high quality. This allowed them to analyze thoroughly their data set on the basis of existing theories or models. The outcome is quite convincing and provides a strong basis for future studies on the transport properties in tight rocks. Nevertheless there are some points which could be clarified to my viewpoint:
At line 63, I wonder if all the digits are significant for the vol%
In Table 1, for Bowland is it correct to read for kaolinite 0.26% +/- 2.6%?
In Table 1 the density of quartz for Pennant is wrong
At line 181, the definition of storativity should be more general, because for the downstream storativity it is not the pore volume that comes in.
At line 536 it should be “in Eq. (15)”