Effect of Rock Stress on Gas Production
From Low-Permeability Reservoirs
JurisVairogs, SPE-AIME, CitiesServiceOil Co.
C. L. Heam, SPE-AIME, CitiesServiceOil Co.
Donald W. Dareing, SPE-AIME, U. of Arkansas
V. W. Rhoades, SPE-AIME, CitiesServiceOil Co.
himxhictkm
The decline in gas reserves has stimulated widespread
interest in gas-bearing formations previously con-
sidered to be uneconomic because of extremely low
permeability. Routine core aiialyses have Micated
permeabilities in many such reservoirs on the order
of 0.1 md and lower. Wells in such reservoirs have
been proposed as candidates for nuclear or high-
explosives stimulation to increase production rates.
In investigating the flow behavior of wells in tight
gas reservoirs, it has been observed that measured
alIW’-.. . 1----- ..- -=..-. =+’---
dLCS cUG W1llGL1l
rn,,,-h
UGO U,UW.I
NJ”
I,m,x,a
d
*h nq p~~~i~~~~
CMU
by transient gas flow equations based on Darcy’s law.
Several plausible explanations for this discrepancy
have been offered. (1) Errors may be caused by
deviation from the usual simplifying assumptions such
as reservoir homogeneity, open-hole completions, and
single-phase flow. (2) Non-Darcy effects due to high
gas velocity near the wellbore may restrict flow. (3)
Liquid from retrograde condensation or formation of
gas hydrates can reduce permeability; however, the
ranges of the temperature, pressure, and gas com-
position necessary for this to occur are usually not
encountered in low-permeability gas reservoirs.
This paper discusses a mechanism that may have
a significant effect on production from tight gas reser-
voirs — reduction of permeability due to rock stress.
Lowering of pore pressure as gas is produced increases
the Ccnfiming ~Ire~Se~on the reservoir rock: causing
it to compact. The compaction causes reduction of
the effective pore diameters, resulting in a decreased
permeability. This effect has been studied by sev-
The effect of stress on permeability has been incorporated into a mathematical model
jor gas flow based on a theoretical analysis oj the stress state around a wellbore.
Example calculations show that permeability reduction due to stress can significantly
affect the production characteristics oj wells in tight gas reservoirs.
SEPTEMBER, 1971 5(T-
eral authors. *-5These studies covered both clean and
shaly sandstones. Confining pressures were applied
hydrostatically and with different pressure applied to
ih.= .;,4..
$1. e ,+=”.
Of the rrjre ~ha~
“. . ..” - . .
f~ Lhe eIIdS, Only one set
of data3 was reported for a core of less than 0.1 md
permeability. The effect of stress on this core with
very low permeability was much greater than the
effect on the others. A possible explanation for this
is that very tight cores have smaller pore radii. In-
creasing the compressive stress applied to pores of
~m-a]!radius could decrease their flow capacity pro-
portionately more than that of larger pores.
This study was conducted (1) to confirm the con-
clusions of previous work, *-5 and to demonstrate
experimentally that permeability reduction is pro-
portionately greater in low-permeability than in high-
permeability cores; (2) to incorporate the stress effect
into a mathematical model for reservoir gas flow; and
(3) to use this model to check the extent of produc-
tion decrease that might be expected because of
permeability’s sensitivity to stress.
Laboratory Measurements of Stress
Effect on Permeability
A schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus
is shown in Fig. 1. Basically it consisted of a cell
t1(JL
--- apply
--- ..:..
111~- .pdul
. ..-. .,-ae *-
L“ f..rlid
w, 1...-..”ric.~1 . ~Qr~~, ~ p-~~~~.
gen source for permeability measurement, pressure
gauges, and a flow meter. The core samples were
2 in, long and 2 in. in diameter. Sample preparation
consisted of oven drying at 110°C, then coating the
1161
 cylindrical surface with a thin layer of epoxy resin.
Tine seaieci cores were inserted in a 2-in.-iD rub-
ber sleeve having a %-in. wall, The encased sample
was then placed in the stainless steel cell as shown
in Fig. 1, and the annulus was filled with hydraulic
fluid to a pressure of 500 psig. This was chosen as
the minimum confining pressure to insure that there
would be no leakage past the rubber sleeve.
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the cores were hydro-
statically loaded except for small areas at the ends
where the gas lines were connected. The confining
pressures generated normal stresses both transverse
and parallel to the direction of fluid flow within
the core. These normal stresses were equal in all
directions.
Permeability measurements were made at several
levels of confining pressure for each core by flowing
nitrogen through it. The nitrogen was introduced at
a constant pressure of 150 psig. The permeability was
calculated using the steady-state gas flow equation.
Figs. 2 through 4 illustrate some general observa-
tions made during the course of the study. Each plot
shows F, the ratio of permeability at a given con-
fining pressure to the permeability at a confining pres-
sure of 500 psig, as a function of confining pressure.
The 500-psig initial confining pressure was the
initial condition for each series of permeability
measurements.
Fig. 2 WWii3tf3 the giWiRi degree Of pe~mea-
bility reduction with low-permeability cores than with
high-permeability cores. The permeability of each
-——.at 500 psig confining pressure, kb, is shown on
core
the figure. Core A is Chanute sandstone, Core B is
San Andres carbonate, Cores C and D are Springer
sandstone, and Core E is a Frio sandstone. All the
cores appeared uniform in texture and free of shale
streaks and hairline fractures when examined visually.
In cores with initial permeability less than 1 md, the
permeability is significantly reduced at high net con-
fining pressure.
The presence of shale streaks and hairline frac-
tures appeared to increase drastically the permeability
H are both from the same San Andres formation well,
Both showed the presence of hairline fractures. How-
ever, Core H also had shale streaks. Core H exhibited
somewhat greater permeability reduction, although it
has a higher initial permeability. It was concluded
that although the general effect shown in Fig. 2 is
true as a rule, the presence of factors dkturbing the
uniformity of the core can have overriding effects.
Discussion of the experimental work would be in-
complete without mention of hysteresis effects. Fig.
5 shows this effect for a Morrow sandstone core. On
it are shown the permeability under certain stress
levels and the permeability recovery after the con-
fining pressure was quickly lowered to 500 psig. Tests
were also performed in which permeability reduction
curves were measured, the sample was allowed to re-
main under no stress for 43 days, and then it was
restressed under identical conditions. Although some
samples showed almost no hysteresis effect when
stressed to 20,000 psi, most of them, like the De-
vonian dolomite shown on Fig. 6, had a pronounced
effect. The hysteresis effect was not observed to be
strongly related to the permeability but was dependent
on the previous stress history of the sample. That is,
when hysteresis occurs, its magnitude is dependent
upon the maximum stress to which the rock has been
subjected. This effect is also shown in the short-term
test of Fig. 5.
Figs. 2 through 4 show that when the stress eilect is
significant most of the loss of permeability occurs by
the time the confining stress level reaches about 4,000
psi. ~hk k in line with the observations of Fatt and
Davis.’
It can be seen that the permeability of a rock may
I
9—
8—
7—
B—
F
5—
CORE “D” kb=QIE~md

reduction due to stress, as shown on Fig. 3. Core C 6—

represents the uniform Springer sandstone shown on .3—
Fig. 1, whereas Core F is a Springer sandstone lami- 2—
CORE “E” kb, 0.04rrd

nated with shale streaks and exhibiting hairliie

fractures. I I I I I I I ! I
The effect of tiny hairline fractures and shale 0 ‘o - ‘mNET -CONFINING‘- ‘w ‘“m ‘-
PRESSURE , PSIG ‘- ‘m
streaks is further illustrated on Fig. 4. Cores G and
Fig. 2—Permeability ratio vs net confining pressure.

PRESSURIZED
GAS CYLINOER
‘,
\
--’
PRESSURE
,REOUCER INLET PUES5URE GSUGE
F=-_7
,k-, ~
6
F
5 PI
SACK PRESSURE
COntrOller

HYDRAUL K GA:ETF&W
FLUIO Pwp
[i scco4cca soxlsmoloco0 120x Mccom mcm Socm
~ NET CONFINING PRESSURE , PSIG

/- Fig. l—Experimental test apparatus. Fig. 3-Permeability ratio vs net confining pressure.
/
1162 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 depend on confining pressure in a complex manner. :2=— 1 [g2—V(2?,+.- 0.)1
In the experimental measurements, the cordining .,. + *(1–p–@)P,
E
pressure was applied iinifmnly :n .# ~&tJcn~. ,-.
Since the pore pressure during the flow tests was very . . . . . . . . . . . . [5)
low, the confining pressure is, in effect, the rock stress. where
In relating the experimental results to reservoir cal-
culations it is necessa~ to know the conditions that (1 – 2vJ/E~
aflect rock stress in the reservoir. In particular, stress P = (1 – 2v)/E “
effects near the wellbore are important. The shear strain is given by
., Rock Stresses near a Wellbore 1
yfe=~~re . . . . . . . ..(4)
The of stress around a wellbore in a porous
state
medium has been treated by Lubinski6 and more 1
recently by Deily and Owens’ as well as by others. yez=@-TOz . . . . . . . ..(5)
The stress equations for this study were adapted
from Lubinski. He defied macrostress, u, as the 1
YT=== T,,..... . ...(6).
average intensity of force per unit of total area, and
microstress, u’, as the average intensity of force per These relationships are similar to those used in
unit area of the interpore material. A third type of thermal stress studies for which impermeable bodies
stress represents the component of the macrostress are subjected to surface forces and temperature. Be-
that is primarily responsible for permeability and cause of this similarity, equations from thermal stress
porosity changes; it will be called effective macro-
studies can be moditied and used to determine stresses
stress, O-”). in porous rock.
First, consider macrostresses. Strain in a porous
Using the thermal stress equations, we find that
medium subjected to formation stresses (macro-
the triaxial macrostresses near a wellbore are de-
stresses) and pore pressure is, according to Lubinski,
scribed by
1
g~ = — *(l– B--+)P,
E [m,—V(ue+ U*)]+
. . . . . . . . . . . . [1)
la)

Ee =;[.. –V,+U*)]+* (l(B–+)P,P,

● ~prdr
rln
– s prdr’
rm I
_ rwjzrd2 (pw — pd) 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . (2) rdz — rw2 ~

rwz pw — rd2 Pd + ~p
+

‘“ri +

E rd 2 ‘:2-
— rw2
rwi*- ‘) ‘“’’-’”

. . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
F’ l–2v 1 r2+rw2
2Jo=(l-P)1_v~rd2
[ — rw2

1
“l- I 1 1 1 I 1 I
IOCVWC9SOLVW20SWG S@O a2-xlsGOolGmo
NET CONFINING WCSSIJRE, ;Sw

Fig. 4-Permeability ratio vs net confining pressure.

. . . . . . . . . . . . (8)

++p–uo. . . . . . . . (9)

I [ I I I I I I I I The last terms in Eqs. 7 and 8 account for

o~
NET Ci2iifiw r7Essma FSG horizontal formation loading through impermeable
Fig. &Permeability racovery 1 hour after stress removal. boundaries, whereas the last term in Eq. 9 accounts

SEPTEMBER, 1971 1163

for overburden loading through impermeable bound- local pore pressure and another in which the micro-
aries; these terms were superimposed on Lubinski’s stresses are u“,, u“., and c“,, with no pore pressure.
equations, Lubinski’s equations do not include these It is reasonable to assume that rock permeability and
terms because he considered stresses and flow through porosity do not vary appreciably by pressure com-
an open cylindrical rock capped with impermeable pletely surrounding the rock cube. The changes in
horizontal boundaries. For example, without the last permeability and porosity, then, vary mainly because
term in Eq. 7,0, at r = rd is –(1 – @)Pd.With the last of u“,, o“,, u“=. The corresponding macrostresses,
term included in Eq. 7, u, at r = rti is (– uf + $Pd). called effective stresses, are
Because of symmetry, the shear stresses are zero. d“, = (1 – +) u“, = u, – (1 – $$)p. . (17)
Note that the three stress components depend on the
pressure distribution, which is to be determined. As- uF”, = (1 – s)) u”, = u, – (1 – +)P. . (18)
suming that the macrostresses can be determined, let
d“= = (1 – +) u“= = u. – (1 – +)p . . (19)
us now consider how microstesses and effective
stresses are determined from them. Effective stresses are the ones tiiat were produced in
M-icrostresses are reiated to the macrostresses by the laboratory experiments to obtain the data dis-
the foUowing simple relationships cussed in the previous section. During the laboratory
tests, the effective stresses (or confining pressure)
‘“=*’”””””””” (lo) were equal in all transverse directions. Actually, the
principal normal stresses (u’”. and u’”.) are unequal
,allL-.”.. ~h~i~for~, ~ ~ei -...
mar +Uie RG1lUUIC. Iaung the rock
‘“=+””””””””” (11)
permeabilities produced in the laboratory to perme-
abilities in the reservoir, the following assumption
‘*=*”””””””” . (12) was made:
(20)
ac z%V2 (SJf”z + U’”e) . . . . . .
Effective stresses are determined as follows (see
Fig. 7). For the moment, consider only u’,. It can be Mathematical Model for Reservoir Gas Flow
divided into two components so that
Reduction of permeability due to intergranular mac-
U’r=p+ u”,. . . . . . . . . (13) rostress (effective stress) was incorporated into a
numerical model for gas flow to a well in a circular
But substituting for the microstress, u’,, gives reservoir, based on the isothermal gas flow equation
— — (14) la
“’=1: +~”
We can now i~ok at the orjuimal
”””””’
6...-A ?nie.fict..cc
....-. ”s &tiasu~- +k-
~,~ ,-
——
r i3r ( _rpkap .zPi3r )_ +& (+)

direction as the sum of two microstresses having . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

magnitudes of p and u“,, Similarly in the other two Solution of this equation was obtained using a pro-
directions, (0, z), cedure similar to that of Bruce et aL* Gas properties
were allowed to be functions of pressure. Either rate
“’=*-P’” “ “ “ “ “ “ ’15) or pressure could be specified as a boundary condi-
tion at the well. The drainage radius was considered
and to be a no-flow boundary. The model was verified
by comparing test calculations with published solu-
U“s= — — ~””””””” (16) tions and with the semisteady-state solution.
1:+ Permeability reduction due to stress was included
The microstress state on a in ~ Cu b ica i ei~ rn ~ n t
h~ c.~~ujatinu
---e the
---- nrirwinal
y...-.yu. AFaPti.Ja
w-w-u. w St.a..a.
.xw..w* fn. e.-L
LUL kakm

reservoir can be divided into two microstress states; time step. Since the net flow is radial, it was assumed
one in which the matrix in the cube is completely that permeability reduction due to stress in the direc-
surrounded, inside and out, by pressure equal to the tion ef flow would be small near the wellbore com-
pared with that due to the vertical and tangential
stresses. Thus the permeability reduction was assumed
w
to be primarily a function of u’”0 and u’”=.
4[ The vertical and tangential effective stresses were
calculated by Eqs. 8, 9, 18, and 19. The effective
stress for permeability reduction was calculated by
Eq. 20. This stress, u., is the net confining pressure
on F@ 2 through 4. In the model, the permeability
: ;~ was determined by the laboratory tests relating OCto
o INITIAL CURVE permeability.
.2 — CORE “K” k+,=.OE
* o CURVE AFTER 43 OAYS It can be seen that permeability depends on effec-
I 1
,,, ,,
, I I
tive stress. Effective stress is a function of pore pres-
0 2000 400o 6W0
NET
em Ilooo 12CGQ ,4003
CO+JFINING PRESSURE, PSIG
IGCOO ,8W doo
sure, which in turn is a function of permeability. In
Fig. 6-Permeability recovety 43 days
the model we treated this relationship by iterating
after stress removal. during each time step.

1164 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 ~fiiiar
..... .rn-0&4s having -permeability that varies with
pore pressure were presented by Efierts et al,,’ and
Raghaven et al.’” However, the permeability was not
considered to be a function of stress. We believe that
basing the permeability reduction on stress, which is
a function of pore pressure, is theoretically more
sound.
Fig. 7—Distribution of microstress.
Prediction of Reservoir Performance
The numerical model was used to calculate expected
flfiw
.“.. .-~ntegfor
.-” - the example reservoir conditions shown
1*
in Table 1. Ideal gas properties were used to empha-
9—
size the effect of permeability variation with stress
.0 —
~d to allow easy comparison with analytical solu-
7-
tions. The experimental permeability reduction curves s—
for a Morrow sandstone and San Andres carbonate F
,5—
were used in the calculations. These curves are shown .4 —
on Fig. 8. .s —
FQs. 9 and 10 show the calculated flow rate as a z—
function of time when the two formations are pro- ,1—
duced at a constant bottom-hole pressure of 2,000 I
I030SX0-
I I I I I
4CO0 Mm S&m 7ccQs0co
I I
sow Iwm
%
psia. On each figure, the upper curve is for a constant NEr CmFIMffi msssvKE, F%
permeability of 0.1 md — that is, there is no ~tre~s Fig. 8-Permeabiiiiy ratio w net eofifiRifi~ pre:.sws.
effect. The middle curve is for the permeability that
is obtained when the porous medium is subjected to
the stresses calculated for the reservoir at its tiltial
pore pressure — that is, before production starts. The
resultant permeability is shown on the two curves and
is dtierent for each because of different rock charac-
teristics shown by Fig. 8. For these tsvo curves the
permeabdity was not allowed to change from its
initial value during gas production. One might look
at the upper curve as representing the flow rate calcu-
~ated ~J~ing ~e=.eabfiity ~btained from a conven-
tional core test, and the middle curve as that calcu-
lated using permeabdity obtained from a transient
pressiire ie~t .%@ in +h- .LIV--vlif-
..-
Of reservoir
--- ----------
the The
bottom curve on Figs. 9 and 10 shows the flow rate
when the permeability is variable with stress. The
n.
contrast between the middle and bottom curves shows
the effect of the additional permeability reduction 00 I
5
[
10
I
15 20
I J
25
near the wellbore because of the pressure drawdown. TIME , YEARS

Fig. 11 shows the flow rate as a function of bottom- Fig. 9—Production rate vs time at constant wellbore
hole pressure for the Morrow sandstone at 0.2 and pressure, Morrow sandstone. p. = 2,000 psia.
2.2 years after start of production, for the cases of
stress-variable permeability and constant in-situ per-
—-. L:l:G, 1...-A,-l:t:fi
IIICdUUMy. u auuiuun
+fib~uinu
.-J .-. -e
a- ~nw~~
-
flQwrate: the

TABLE 1—RESERVOIR AND GAS PROPERTIES

3

Wellbore radius, ft 0.25

~
Drainage radius, ft 2,980 0
m
Net pay thickness, ft 100 s k = 0.1 md. COW.
Hydrocarbon porosity 0.04 z
.2 -
Initial permeability, md 0.1 :

Temperature, 0F 340 <

a
Initial pressure, psia 7,000
z
Overburden stress,* psi 10,000 0
: 1
Formation stress,** psi 8,000 k = 0.027 md. const
3
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 Q
0
\ k = VARIAELE
Rock compressibility ratio 0.25 :
Gas compressibility
Gas viscosity, CP
factor 1.0
0.015 o~ o 5 10
TIME , YEARS
Is 20 25

“Corresponds to 10, OOO42 well depth.

● ● Formation stress was arbkrarily chosen as aO Percent Of the Fig. 10-Produtilon rate vs time at constant wellbore
overburden. pressure, San Andras carbonate. P. == 2ooo Psia.

SEPTEMBER, 1971 1165

stress-variable curves are somewhat flatter at low k = permeability, md
bottom-hole pressures. This suggests that in rocks kb = perrneabfity of a core at 500 psig con-
with permeability sensitive to stress, increasing the fining-. pressure, md
nrP.Qcllre~Y*WrlO~p&
=.”” . . . . . . .. . ~o., --+ *:.Y-+l.
“U.? “UL6’Y a . ..-.-.-2 Pr@
= ‘1’=6AlJ’=~L~U
duction rate increase. P = pore pressure, psia
Fig. 12 shows bottom-hole pressure as a function Pd drainage boundary pressure, psia
=
of time at a constant production rate of 1 MMscf/D
P. wellbore pressure, psia
=
for the Morrow sandstone. The permeability cases
are the same as on Fig. 9. Fig. 12 is further con- ~ = radi~ distance from center of well, ft
firmation of the possible significant effects on pro- rd = drainage boundary radius, ft
duction from tight gas reservoirs when permeability
rw = wellbore radius, ft
is sensitive to rock stress.
t = time
Conclusions
z = gas compressibility factor
1. Very tight rocks are atlected by stress more
than permeable rocks. This confkrns the observation /3 = ratio of compressibility of rock matrix to
of McLatchie et al. 3 that of the bulk
2. The permeability of a rock depends complexly y = ~~.~~~~&~
on confining pressure (stress). Rock heterogeneities, E = normal strain
such as fractures and shale streaks, accentuate the
permeability reduction due to stress. w = viscosi~, cp
3. The effect of stress on permeability has been v = Poisson’s ratio of bulk sample
incorporated into a mathematical model for gas flow,
based on a theoretical ahalysis of the stress state t,~= Poisson’s ratio of rock matrix
around a wellbore. Example calculations show that u = macrostress, psi
permeability reduction due to stress can significantly
affect the production characteristics of wells in tight UC= confining pressure on core, psi
gas reservoirs. a~ = stress due to horizontal loading, psi
Nnmnd.t.-e
. . “.lswllwIa Lul

E = modulus of elasticity of bulk, psi d = microstress, psi

Ei = modulus of elasticity of rock matrix, psi OJ’ = effective microstress, psi
F = ratio of permeability at a given contining 0’” = effective macrostress, psi
pressure to that at a confining pressure
of 500 psig T = shear stress, psi
G = shear modulus, psi $ = porosity

— k=aoamd.
----- k . WRIASU

!3
= 2.0 —
z

&
a
t.o.2yrs.
r
t.22yrs.

[ 1.5 ==
—------- ------
---- J~o.2yrs.
--
-.
-.
------- ------ -
-- --- J:22yrs.
-.-
----

oo~o
WELLSORE MESSURE,PSJA TIME , YEARS

Fig. n-Production rate vs wellbore pressure, Fig. 12—Wellbore pressure vs time at constant
Morrow sandstone. production rate of 1 MMscf/D, Morrow sandstona.

1166 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

.. . ..

Subscripts Second U. S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics

(1954) 247-256.
r = radi~
7. Deily, F. H. and Owens,F. C.: “StressAround a Well-
z = vertical bore”, paper SPE 2557 presented at SPE 44th Amual
Fall Meeting,Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott. 1, 1969.
6 = tangential 8. F&cefi: ~, DPeaceman,D. W,, Rachford, H. H., Jr.,
o “Calculations of Unsteady-StateGas
Flow T&ou”ghPorous Media”, Trans., AIME (1953)
References i%, 79-92.
1. Fatt, I. and Davis,T. H.: “The Reductionin Permeability 9. Eilerts, C. K.,Sumner,E. F. and Potts, N. L.: “integra-
with Overburden Pressure”, Trans., AIME (1952 ) 195, tion of Partial DifferentialEquation for Transient Radial
329. Flow of Gas-CondensateFluids in Porous Structures”,
.SOC. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1965) 141-152.
2. Fatt, I.: “The Effect of OverburdenPressure on Relative
Permeabilit~’, ~runs., AIME (1953), xzm,
‘‘* -J25-326.
‘ 10. Raghaven, R., Scorer, J. T. D. and Miller, F. G.: “An
Investigation by Numerical Methods of the Effect of
3. McLatchie,L. S., Hemstock, R. A. and Young, J. W.: Pressure Dependent Rock and Fluid Properties on Well
“The Effect of Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks and Flow Tests”, paper SPE 2617 presented at SPE 44th
;~6~~8ct on Permeability”, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, :~.9u~ Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott. 1,
-. LIPT
4. Wvble. D. O.: “Effect of Applied pressure on Con-
d~c~v;ty, Porosity and Perrneabllity of Sandstones’;, Original manuscript received in Society of Fetroieurri Eii@ii6ars
Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 43Q-432. ‘ office July 31, 1970. Revised manuscript received July 1, 1971.
Paper (SPE 3001) was presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
5. Gray, D. H., Fatt, I. and Bergarnini, G.: “The Effect of held in Houston, Oct. 4.7, 1970; and at SPE Annual Eastern
Stress on ~ermeability’ of Sandstone Cores”, Sot. Pet. Regional Meeting, held in Pittsburgh, Nov. 5-6, 1970. 0 COPY
Eng. J. (June, 1963) 95-100. right 1971 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Patro.
lawn Engineer% !!?C.
6. Lubinaki, A.: “The Theory of Elasticity for Porous This pdper will be printed in Transaction volume 251, which
Bodies Displaying a Strodg Pore
,. Structure”, Proc., will cover 1971.

.,, -

SEPTEMBER, 1971 1167