Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
http://www.keaipublishing.com/jnggs

Original research paper

Using characteristics of pressure-temperature induced permeability variation

of typical carbonate rock to determine its performance as reservoir or cap
rock*
Tong Lin a,*, Tongshan Wang a, Jinghai Dong b, Yin Zeng c, Zhide Wu a
a
PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing, 100083, China
b
Exploration Department of Daqing Oilfield Co. Ltd., Daqing, 163453, China
c
College of Water and Hydropower of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, China
Received 3 September 2020; revised 6 November 2020
Available online 30 November 2020

Abstract

The current research on carbonate rock often focuses on the storage space for oil and gas, and exploration of carbonate rock in petroliferous
basins also mainly searches for high-quality reservoir rock for hydrocarbons. However, the importance of effective carbonate reservoir-cap rock
configuration is increasingly highlighted, as hydrocarbon exploration advances towards deeper and older strata. Exploration practice shows that
the favorable facies belt of carbonate rock, though deeply buried, still develops highly desirable reservoir rock with high porosity and
permeability. Therefore, the presence of an effective carbonate cap rock collaborating with this reservoir rock becomes key to hydrocarbon
exploration in deep carbonate rock. This research, for the first time, systematically and thoroughly carries out permeability measurement through
the whole triaxial compression process of typical carbonate rock at varied temperatures, and captures the permeability evolution during
deformation and failure, affected by temperatures and confining pressures. Test results show that typical dolomite and limestone present varied
permeability variation characteristics in a triaxial loading state. Dolomite appears to be more of reservoir rock. It presents higher critical
confining pressure for brittleeductile transition, and is more prone to fracturing. Its permeability grows with temperature elevation. As for
limestone, it has better performance as cap rock, which is embodied as the lower critical confining pressure for brittleeductile transition, high
sealing capacity, and permeability reduction with elevated temperatures. To sum up, vertical stacking of dolomite and limestone can form an
effective reservoir-cap rock assemblage for hydrocarbon accumulation.
Copyright © 2020, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences AND Research Institute of Petroleum
Exploration and Development, PetroChina. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Carbonate cap rock; Triaxial stress; Permeability variation; Critical confining pressure for brittleeductile transition; Reservoir-cap rock assemblage

1. Introduction

Carbonate rock can develop multiple types of features

favorable for hydrocarbon storage, such as the reef (mound)
beach body, fracture-cavern system, karst zone, fractured
* zone, and dolomite reservoir rock, and areas/zones with
This is English translational work of an article originally published in
Natural Gas Geoscience (in Chinese).The original article can be found at: 10. development of such features are ready for forming large
11764/j.issn.1672-1926.2020.05.011. carbonate oil and gas reservoirs. As an important reservoir
* Corresponding author.
rock type for hydrocarbons, carbonate rock is found with a
E-mail address: lintong1980@163.com (T. Lin).
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial office of Journal of Natural Gas gargantuan quantity of hydrocarbon reserves. The estimated
Geoscience. oil initially in place (OIIP) of onshore marine-facies carbonate

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnggs.2020.11.004
2468-256X/Copyright © 2020, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences AND Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
rock amounts to 34
109 t, and gas initially in place (GIIP),
24.3
1012 m3 [1]. Owing to that the formation and preser-
vation mechanisms of carbonate rock storage space during the
burial process are superior to those of clastic rock that is prone
to compaction-induced porosity reduction [2e4], carbonate
rock will inevitably evolve into the focus of future exploration,
as hydrocarbon exploration advances toward deeper, older and
more complex strata. Over the last decade, China has set up
several major national science and technology projects to
tackle problems in hydrocarbon exploration of carbon rock,
which produce many great theoretical innovations and
research achievements [5], and lead to discovery of a series of
carbonate rock oil and gas fields. In the Sichuan, Tarim, and
Ordos basins, large sets of carbonate rock develop from the
Neoproterozoic to the Paleozoic, associated with high OIIP
and GIIP. The Anyue gasfield, a large gas field with proven gas
in place exceeding one trillion cubic meters, is discovered in
the Sinian-Cambrian carbonate rock in the Central Sichuan,
Sichuan Basin [6e8], where the reservoir control theory based
on the paleo-rift, paleo-uplift, paleo-reef beach, and paleo-trap
has been developed. For deep-burial carbonate rock in the
Northwest Sichuan and Northeast Sichuan, Sichuan Basin,
they have also been explored and formed oil and gas fields
with a certain scale [9e11]. Large-scale hydrocarbon reser-
voirs are found in multiple sets of carbonate rock of the
Sinian-Cambrian-Ordovician systems in the North Tarim and
Central Tarim areas, Tarim Basin. The Ordovician in the North
Tarim area alone have contributed several oil and gas fields,
such as the Tahe, Yingmaili, and Lunnan oil and gas fields
[12], and numerous wells present daily hydrocarbon produc-
tion over one hundred tons of oil equivalent, which indicate
abundance in hydrocarbon resources and highly promising
exploration prospect. Moreover, the carbonate reservoir rock
development patterns of “weathering karst”, “inter-layer karst”
and “along-layer karst” have been concluded [2,13], which
effectively guides exploration deployment for carbonate rock.
In 2011, Well Zhongshen-1 brings out an industrial stream
with daily production of 158
103 m3 from the Mid-Lower
Cambrian dolomite, which opens a novel exploration field
for carbonate rock in the Tarim Basin [14e16], and that is,
towards deeper and older strata. In the Ordos Basin, karst
weathering crust reservoir rock occurs in multiple layers of the
Lower Paleozoic Ordovician Majiagou Formation, and large
carbonate rock gas fields, represented by the Jingbian gas field,
have been found [17]. Although numerous oil and gas fields
have been discovered in the marine carbonate rock series of
China, such strata are still highly promising for further
breakthrough, and believed to have tremendous exploration
potential.
As mentioned above, conventionally carbonate rock is al-
ways taken as the reservoir rock for hydrocarbons. Thus,
exploration of carbonate rock mainly searches for areas/zones
developed with high-quality reservoir rock, and the established
theory and model also mainly focus on formation and devel-
opment of high-quality reservoir rock. However, coming into
being of some carbonate oil and gas reservoirs is not only
related to the storage capacity of rock, but also the sealing
2
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
status. For example, in terms of formation of the oil and gas
reservoir of the Ying-3 Member, the Ordovician Yingshan
Formation in the northern slope of the Tabei Uplift [18,19], the
muddy carbonate rock of the Lianglitage Formation and
mudstone of the Sangtamu Formation of the Upper Ordovician
serve as the regional cap rock for hydrocarbons, and the car-
bonate rock extensively developed in the Yingshan Formation,
due to multi-stage dissolution and structural fracturing func-
tions as the reservoir rock, which form a good reservoir-cap
rock assemblage. Nonetheless, the tight limestone occurring
in the Yingshan Formation is the direct barrier for the Ying-3
Member in this area, and it is the effective configuration be-
tween this tight carbonate rock with stable lateral extension
and high vertical thickness and the fractured-vuggy layer that
cultivates the oil and gas reservoir in the lower portion of the
Yingshan Formation.
2. Potential of carbonate rock as barriers
Over the recent years, explorationists gradually recognize
presence of effective carbonate cap rock is one of the key
factors to deep carbonate rock exploration [18,20]. For
instance, in the Mid-Lower Cambrian of the Tarim Basin,
recent exploration practice has confirmed the presence of the
reef beach reservoir rock of the Xiaoerbulake Formation
around the margin of the Tazhong-Bachu paleo-uplift
[21,22]. In Well Chutan-1, the Xiaoerbulake Formation at
7560 m is still found with massive dolomite inter-granular
dissolved pores, presenting porosity of 5.2%. This indicates
that the main issue of the exploration in the Cambrian car-
bonate rock of the Tarim Basin shall be the effective
configuration of source, cap and reservoir rocks, instead of
the presence of deep effective reservoir rock. Well Shutan-1,
located at the western Bachu Uplift, presents not only
extensive high-quality reservoir rock in the Lower Cambrian
Xiaoerbulake Formation but also rich bitumen in cores and
bitumen and hydrocarbon inclusions found in thin sections,
which imply hydrocarbon charging to the Mid-Lower
Cambrian that was unfortunately damaged later due to cap
rock sealing capacity and other preservation factors [20]. Lin
et al. [20], on the basis of their investigation of the Middle
Cambrian gypsum cap rock in the Tarim Basin, point out that
functioning of gypsum cap rock as hydrocarbon sealing
barriers is associated with a burial depth limit; salt rock,
though high-quality cap rock, is seen with a limited regional
development range; therefore, is it acceptable to suggest that
carbonate rock in areas with no development of salt cap rock
should have no exploration potential?
The Cambrian in the Tarim Basin develops multiple stages
of the reef beach facies. The platform margin facies belt
spreads over several hundred kilometers, all the way from the
southern Gucheng area to the Tabei area, and the mound beach
facies, vertically stacking over each other, grow towards the
inner basin. Although the reef beach reservoir rock develops,
its distribution is controlled by the spatial configuration of
sedimentary facies belts. Consequently, no mudstone of
deepwater marine facies or gypsum salt rock of the evaporate
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
platform facies occurs above the reef beach reservoir rock and
serve as cap rock. However, giving up the Cambrian, a broad
exploration field, due to the aforementioned understanding of
cap rock, will inevitably darken the prospect of hydrocarbon
exploration in deep carbonate rock. Given this, this research
probes into the potential cap rock vertically stacking over the
reef beach facies. Core samples of the Ying-3 Member are
collected from Well Gucheng-601, and tested for breakthrough
pressures (Table 1). The breakthrough pressure of the micrite
at 6063e6096 m is of 7.11e25.1 MPa, averaging 11.8 MPa;
that of the dolomite at 6110e6137 m averages 5.04 MPa. The
gap of the breakthrough pressure between the dolomite
reservoir rock and the micrite is about 6 MPa, which exceeds
the established critical value (2 MPa) for the cap-reservoir
rock breakthrough pressure difference [18]. Therefore, this
limestone is capable of directly serving as cap rock.
3. Implication and design of rock permeability variation
tests
In order to finely differentiate the performances of car-
bonate rock serving as cap and reservoir rocks, search for
potential carbonate cap rock and clarify occurring conditions
of such cap rocks, and finally expand the range of carbonate
rock hydrocarbon exploration, this paper tests permeability
variation of typical (from a rock mechanics point of view)
dolomite and limestone. These efforts are made to demonstrate
cap and reservoir rock properties of these two types of car-
bonate rock, and thus provide theoretical basis for exploration
of carbonate oil and gas reservoirs.
It is well known that the sealing capacity of rock is a key to
effectiveness of cap rock. The breakthrough pressure is a key
parameter evaluating the rock sealing capacity. Theoretically,
effective sealing of hydrocarbons can be performed, once the
breakthrough pressure of cap rock exceeds that of reservoir
rock. Hence, in practice of evaluating cap rock effectiveness,
one often only focuses on cap rock sealing capacity and ne-
glects the load-induced deformation of cap rock. In
structurally-complex areas, especially the faulted zone, origi-
nally tight cap rock develops micro crack networks [23,24] or
Table 1
Breakthrough pressures of limestone and dolomite in the Ying-3 Member in the Gucheng area.
Well No. Stratigraphy Lithology Wellbore
Section/m
Gucheng-601 Ying-3 Micrite 6 063.75
Member Micrite 6 068.25
Micrite 6 095.54
Micrite 6 096.4
Micrite
Laminated 6 109.69
silt-grained
dolomite
Laminated 6 135.52
silt-grained
dolomite
Grey dolomite 6 137.11
Grey dolomite
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
even fails, due to experienced deformation. This significantly
improves permeability of cap rock, and severely impacts its
sealing performance. Consequently, cap rock effectiveness
evaluation shall consider not only the static sealing capacity
but also dynamic permeability variation during load-induced
deformation.
To this end, this paper designs a methodology monitoring
gas permeability of rock during the whole process of triaxial
loading-failure, and the sealing stability of cap rock is eval-
uated in accordance with permeability variation at different
deformation stages. Moreover, considering the temperature
and pressure conditions at the actual buried depth, this
research conducts the developed gas permeability test at
different confining pressures and temperatures. Limited by
instrument measurement precision of laboratories in China
and coupling issues among varied instruments, the afore-
mentioned methodology is mainly practiced in other countries
[23,25e27]. This research adopts the MTS 815 Flex GT rock
mechanics test system, and the self-developed permeability
test instrument for low-permeability rock. The latter consists
of the computer data acquisition system, gas flow system, and
static confining pressure loading system, and measures rock
permeability via the gas-based pulse decay approach (tran-
sient), which is supposedly able to produce accurate and valid
measurements of low-permeability rock. The maximum
confining pressure can be up to 65.50 MPa, the permeability
measurement range is of 107e102 mm2, and the lower
detection limit for porosity is 0.1%. The two high-precision
instruments are coupled to investigate the permeability dy-
namic variation of carbonate rock under a gas-solid-coupled
condition. All samples are dried and stored in a desiccator,
prior to triaxial loading gas permeability tests. The workflow
and method of the permeability variation tests for the two
lithology are identical, and axial loading initiates upon
accomplishment of initial permeability measurement and
lasts until samples fail. Gas permeability test points are even
placed through the loading process. When the test reaches the
specified stress point, the aforementioned transient test [28] is
performed to measure permeability for this stress. Each
sample shall ensure over 10 test points during the whole
Porosity/% Permeability/ Breakthrough Notes
(103 mm2) Pressure/MPa
0.1 0.000 463 10.16 Confining
0.1 0.000 8 8.44 pressure ¼ 45 MPa;
0.3 0.002 73 25.1 Kerosene-saturated
0.3 0.003 58 7.11
8.17 Repeated test
0.7 0.001 99 4.73
0.3 0.000 995 7.18
1.2 0.003 22 4.04
4.23 Repeated test
3
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
loading-failure process, in particular, one point at the peak
stress, and more than three post-peak points. During the test,
the confining pressure is first loaded to the target value at the
rate of 3 MPa/min, and then axial loading initiates. Before the
peak stress, axial loading is controlled at 30 kN/min in
accordance with load feedback, and switched to the hoop
displacement control mode at 0.02 mm/min until final failure
in order to obtain a full stress-strain curve.
4. Permeability variation tests for typical dolomite and
limestone
4.1. Sample preparation
After arriving at the laboratory, fresh tight blocky dolo-
mite and limestone collected in the field are machined in a
dry state into cylinders with diameter of 38 mm and height of
76 mm using a CNC lathe machine. Then, rock cylinders are
polished so as to produce parallel ends, smooth surfaces, and
perpendicular axis required by rock mechanics tests. In
addition, two artificial seepage holes with diameter of 3 mm
are bored on the two ends of the cylinder to avoid the end
effect during loading.
4.2. Triaxial compression tests
Deformation and failure processes of rock during loading
can be captured using the triaxial compression test. Stress
versus strain during triaxial compression for dolomite and
limestone at the room temperature with varied confining
pressures is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. It is shown that with
confining pressures below 60 MPa, the failure of dolomite is
characterized by rapid falling of stress versus axial strain
after the peak stress, a certain value of residual stress, and
occurring of fractures (brittle failure). However, with
confining pressures surpassing 60 MPa, stress versus axial
strain remain nearly horizontal after the peak stress (ductile
deformation). In terms of the failure modes of dolomite
(Fig. 1), the main rock deformation of brittle failure is a
single macro shear crack occurring from the end or middle of
the specimen, while neither apparent macro crack nor visible
shearing plane occurs on the specimen in the case of ductile
deformation.
Peak stress and corresponding axial strain for dolomite
and limestone under varied confining pressures are summa-
rized in Table 2. With the increasing confining pressure,
strength and axial deformation capacity of dolomite are
considerably improved, with growth in both the peak and
dilation stresses. Under the confining pressures of 20 MPa,
30 MPa, and 40 MPa, the axial strain at the peak stress grows
by 15.8%, 23.8%, and 42.3% respectively, compared with
that under the confining pressure of 10 MPa. Confining
pressures restrain not only fracture initiation but also fracture
propagation, which is consistent with the case of dolomite.
Growth of confining pressures enables limestone to transfer
4
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
from brittle failure to ductile deformation (failure). Ductility
of deformation is most apparent under the confining pressure
of 40 MPa, associated with the minimum difference between
the peak and residual stresses and maximum hoop strain.
Moreover, in this case, no obvious macro crack is observed
on the surface of the rock specimen after failure (Fig. 2).
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion of mechanics of ma-
terials is extended into rock mechanics, and expressed as
below, using the principal stress:
s1 ¼ Ms3 þ N ð1Þ
where M ¼ 1þsin4
1sin4; N ¼ 1sin4 ; s1, s3, c, and 4 are the axial
2cþcos4
stress (MPa), hoop stress (MPa), cohesion (MPa) and internal
friction angle ( ) of rock respectively. A nearly linear corre-
lation is found between strength and confining pressures, and
parameters M and N can be obtained via linear regression,
after which Eqs. (2) and (3) can be used to calculate the
cohesion and internal friction angled103.01 MPa and 28.05
for dolomite; 11.68 MPa and 56.52 for limestone. Compared
with dolomite, limestone is seen with a larger internal friction
angle and yet far less cohesion, which indicates that friction
among crystals of limestone is higher than that of dolomite,
while adhesion among crystal mineral particles of limestone is
weaker.
M1
4 ¼ arcsin ð2Þ
Mþ1
Nð1  sin4Þ  ccos4
c¼ ð3Þ
2
Permeability and porosity versus confining pressure for
dolomite and limestone are illustrated in Fig. 3, which shows
rising confining pressures reduce permeability and porosity.
During compaction induced by confining pressures, the rock
framework composed of crystal particles is deformed and
micro cracks become more tortuous. Thus, the gas flow
channel formed by micro cracks is compressed and finally
sealed, which is embodied as gradual decline of crack
permeability with growth of confining pressures. Porosity
and permeability variations are concluded in Table 3, of
which tests are carried out in a hydrostatic state (in other
words, confining pressure ¼ axial load). The initial porosity
and permeability of dolomite are 3.56% and
0.79
103 mm2 respectively; limestone, 1.076% and
0.227
103 mm2. The initial physical property of dolomite
is better than that of dolomite. As the confining pressure
grows to 15.16 MPa, permeability values of both lithology
decline by about one order of magnitude, and then the
decline tends to slow down with further increments of
confining pressures. Similar evolution trends of permeability
are observed for dolomite and limestone. Nonetheless, the
porosity decline magnitude of limestone is considerably
larger than that of dolomite (Table 3), which suggests that
limestone is more prone to loss of pore volumes during
compaction-induced porosity reduction.
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
Fig. 1. Characteristics of stress-strain curves of dolomite at different confining pressures.
4.3. Permeability evolution characteristics during the
whole triaxial loading process for dolomite and
limestone at varied temperatures
When deeply buried, reservoir or cap rock is affected by not
only pressures but also temperatures. At high temperatures,
internal anisotropy occurs in the mineral crystal structure of
5
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
rock, which greatly alters the internal structure and thus peak
stress, moduli of deformation, Poisson's ratio, and permeability
of rock. Moreover, considerable permeability variation driven
by changes in physical properties of rock results in corre-
sponding variation of breakthrough pressures. Therefore, the
effects of temperatures cannot be ignored in evaluating hydro-
carbon sealing performance of cap rock. Seepage behaviors of
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al. Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12

Fig. 2. Characteristics of stress-strain curves of limestone at different confining pressures.

rock at high temperatures have been extensively studies both in
China and other countries. Zharikov et al. [25] measure
permeability of heated sandstone samples, and point out posi-
tive correlation between permeability and temperatures. That is,
with increasing quenching temperatures, permeability grows.
Moreover, they claim that the internal mechanism of perme-
ability variation is that high temperatures lead to swelling of
internal mineral crystal particles of rock. Heard [26] investigate
the correlation between the thermal expansion coefficient and
permeability of quarts monzonite. It is stated that the thermal

6
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al. Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12

Table 2 target temperature is reached and kept for 60 min, gas

Peak stresses and corresponding axial strains for dolomite and limestone under permeability is measured again and taken as the post-heating
varied confining pressures.
initial permeability. Subsequently, the axial loading is car-
Lithology Pressure/MPa Axial strain at Peak Dilation ried out in a manner similar to that at room temperature.
peak stress/% stress/MPa stress/MPa
Permeability is measured at every specified stress, and it is
Dolomite 15 0.66 442.51 281.33 ensured that more than ten permeability measuring points are
40 0.73 486.7 465.7
60 0.91 553.64 477.27
set through the whole loading process.
80 1.93 620.97 615.32 Permeability variation of dolomite during axial loading
Limestone 10 0.64 255.37 129.06 under different temperatures and confining pressures is illus-
20 0.76 334.03 224.8 trated in Fig. 4. It is observed that when the confining pressure
30 0.84 436.34 331 reaches a certain value, temperature elevation leads to
40 1.11 556.45 440.32
considerable permeability enhancement at the same axial
stress point. Such heating-driven permeability improvement is
expansion coefficient is positively correlated with temperatures independent of rock deformation during loading, due to the
and negatively correlated with confining pressures. Increasing fact that under the same conditions, permeability growth is
tests of rock permeability under high temperatures show that synchronized with temperature rising, and instead it follows
elevation of temperatures causes crack extension inside rock the thermoelasticity theory. Comparison between Fig. 4d and h
and thus alters rock porosity, which is embodied as the positive shows stimulation to permeability attributed to heating is not
correlation between permeability and temperatures. Neverthe- restrained by rising confining pressures. Under either a low
less, some researchers claim that in experiments for perme- confining pressure of 15 MPa or a medium one of 45 MPa,
ability versus temperature of coal and granite, permeability dolomite presents positive correlation between permeability
declines or fluctuates with rising temperatures [29e31]. and temperatures at all stress points.
Therefore, it should be noted that not all rock follows the Fig. 5 plots permeability variation of limestone during axial
thermoelasticity theory. loading under different temperatures and confining pressures.
The temperature-variable test in this research is performed When the sample is heated to the required temperature (60  C
in a manner similar to the test at room temperature, except for and 110  C) and yet the axial load is applied (Measuring Point 1
gas permeability is measured right after accomplishing for measuring permeability), the rock permeability is clearly
confining pressure loading and taken as the pre-heating initial lower than that at room temperature (Measuring Point 0).
permeability. Then, heating proceeds at 2  C/min. After the Moreover, permeability values decline at all post-heating

Fig. 3. Permeability and porosity versus confining pressure under hydrostatic pressures for typical carbonate rocks.

Table 3
Permeability and porosity of dolomite and limestone under hydrostatic pressure.
Hydrostatic pressure/MPa Dolomite Limestone
Permeability/(103 mm2) Porosity/% Porosity Reduction/% Permeability/(103 mm2) Porosity/% Porosity reduction/%
5.00 0.790 3.56 0.00 0.227 1.076 0.000
10.34 0.240 2.96 20.27 0.041 0.824 30.52
15.16 0.094 2.64 12.12 0.025 0.696 18.39
25.49 0.064 2.22 18.92 0.020 0.576 20.80
35.14 0.029 1.82 21.98 0.007 0.432 33.30
44.79 0.015 1.53 18.95 0.002 0.316 36.78
55.12 0.008 1.26 21.43 0.001 0.216 46.58

7
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al. Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12

Fig. 4. Permeability evolution for dolomite under the thermal-gas-solid-coupled condition.

points. In terms of permeability reduction magnitude, at 60  C higher temperature increments, which is the very opposite of
and 10 MPa, permeability declines by 59.3% after heating, the case of dolomite, and cannot be explained with the ther-
while it reduces by 75.6% at the high temperature of 110  C. moelastic failure theory [29e31]. When testing thermally-
This demonstrates that the initial permeability falls more with affected permeability of coal, many researchers also observe

8
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al. Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12

Fig. 5. Permeability evolution for limestone under the thermal-gas-solid-coupled condition.

such special phenomena of permeability declining with elevated
temperatures [29e31]. Li et al. [32] suggest that rock perme-
ability decline or fluctuation with temperature elevation may be
caused by the coupling effect of thermal fracturing and swelling
effects. The former stimulates permeability, while the latter
reduces permeability. Furthermore, with continued heating,
thermal fracturing weakens, and yet thermal swelling in-
tensifies. However, we wonder why such phenomena occur in
coal and limestone. An educated guess is that coal and lime-
stone may be characterized by ductility enhancement and

9
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
simultaneously brittleness reduction with temperature elevation.
Also, under confining pressures, heating forces rock particles to
swell inward and thus occupy effective space for fluid flow,
resulting in permeability reduction [30]. The calculation pre-
sented above show that the cohesion of limestone is far less
than that of dolomite. Accordingly, the intensity of thermally-
driven inward swelling of limestone particles that reduces
pore space is higher than that of dolomite, which leads to a
permeability evolution trend with temperature elevation oppo-
site to that of dolomite.
5. Discussion on cap and reservoir rock properties of
dolomite and limestone
5.1. Comparison of critical confining pressures for
brittleeductile transition
In theory, as confining pressures grow, rock will transition
from brittle to ductile [33]. The triaxial compression test shows
that under the confining pressure lower than 60 MPa, the stress
of typical dolomite (versus axial strain) dives after reaching the
peak value. This means that rock suddenly breaks after reaching
its maximum bearable shear stress, and thus the axial stress
rapidly declines. As the confining pressure grows (and still is
below 60 MPa), the decline of the post-peak axial stress slows
down. When the confining pressure reaches 60 MPa, the post-
peak axial stress appears to be nearly stabilized around the
peak stress (a nearly horizontal curve), and this implies that the
residual stress basically equal to the peak stress [33e35] (a
ductile characteristic). Triaxial compression tests of the typical
dolomite sample under varied confining pressures (Fig. 1)
demonstrates that the critical confining pressure for
brittleeductile transition of dolomite is around 60 MPa. From a
petroleum geology point of view, it is safe to say that when the
confining pressure at the burial depth exceeds 60 MPa, dolomite
is ductile. Ductile rock can maintain its integrity under the
structural stressdmore accurately, it barely presents macro
fractures, although micro fractures may occur inside the rock.
As shown in Fig. 1, the samples tested at confining pressures no
Fig. 6. Permeability of dolomite and limestone at each measuring point under 110  C and varied confining pressures.
10
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
less than 60 MPa are observed with no fractures, while those
tested at 15 MPa and 40 MPa are seen with apparent macro
shear fractures.
Similar to dolomite, limestone is also found with the crit-
ical confining pressure for brittleeductile transition. The
limestone samples tested with confining pressures below
40 MPa all present fractures (Fig. 2). Moreover, with a
confining pressure up to 40 MPa, the post-peak axial stress
curve (versus strain) is nearly horizontal, and no macro frac-
ture is observed on the sample, which indicates the ductile
characteristic of limestone at this confining pressure.
Comparison of axial compression test results of dolomite
and limestone demonstrates that the critical confining pressure
for brittleeductile transition of limestone is lower than that of
dolomite. This means that the burial depth at which limestone
becomes ductile is lower than that of dolomite; limestone may
present the mechanical property favorable for being cap rock,
while dolomite is still experiencing a process of rock frac-
turing and permeability enhancement. Hence, from perspec-
tives of cap rock integrity, limestone is superior to dolomite,
when serving as cap rock.
5.2. Permeability comparison under formation
conditions
Under formation conditions, rock is affected jointly by
pressures and temperatures. The test results of this research
show that (confining) pressures can greatly reduce rock
permeability. Dolomite and limestone both present perme-
ability reduction with increasing confining pressures (Fig. 6).
Nonetheless, Table 2 states that the initial porosity and
permeability of tested limestone are lower than those of
dolomite; yet, under the same confining pressure, the porosity
reduction magnitude of limestone is still larger than that of
dolomite. This may be attributed to the smaller cohesion of
limestone, which is only 11.3% of that of dolomite. Small
cohesion indicates weaker adhesion among limestone parti-
cles, and loose particles are more prone to compaction.
Therefore, from perspectives of burial and overburden
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
pressures, deterioration of physical properties of limestone is
severer than that of dolomite under the same conditions, which
makes limestone more favorable as a sealing barrier.
The effects of temperatures upon rock permeability are
related to the intrinsic property of rock, specifically, the ther-
moelasticity of rock. In triaxial compression tests, permeability
values of limestone and dolomite both grow with degrees of
damage. However, after temperatures introduced into tests,
permeability of dolomite through the loading-failure process
always climbs up with the rising temperature, while limestone
presents an opposite casedpermeability declines with elevated
temperatures (Figs. 4 and 5). This indicates that when subjected
to the same burial stress condition and temperature elevation,
permeability of dolomite gradually climbs up, but that of
limestone decreases. In other words, the fluid flow capacity of
dolomite is improved, while the sealing capacity of limestone is
enhanced. Therefore, the breakthrough pressure gap between
the two is gradually expanded. Moreover, Fig. 6 shows during
loading, permeability of both dolomite and limestone rises,
before the peak stress. However, permeability of limestone first
grows and then stabilizes after the peak stress, and yet perme-
ability of dolomite continues gradually growing all the time.
To sum up, the permeability evolution trend during the
whole loading-failure process under the joint effects of
confining pressures and temperatures clarifies that when
deeply buried, limestone generally tends to present enhanced
sealing capacity (deep burial contributes to formation of
limestone cap rock); dolomite is expected to have improved
permeability (deep burial enhances dolomite storage capacity).
6. Conclusions
(1) The permeability test through the whole process of rock
triaxial compression at varied temperatures is able to
capture the effects of underground temperatures and
pressures (the burial condition) upon rock permeability,
and also an effective method to determine the performance
as reservoir and cap rock.
(2) The critical confining pressure for brittleeductile transi-
tion of typical tight dolomite is 60 MPa, and that for
typical tight limestone, 40 MPa. The rock subjected to
confining pressures above this critical value can maintain
integrity and show no macro fractures under burial.
(3) Growth of coning pressures reduce permeability of both
dolomite and limestone. Yet, porosity reduction magnitude
of limestone is larger than that of dolomite. Under the
same condition, permeability of dolomite climbs up with
temperature elevation, but that of limestone decreases.
(4) With the increasing burial depth, dolomite, affected jointly
by temperatures and pressures, tends to present enhanced
permeability, and thus its reservoir rock performance is
growing. On the contrary, permeability of limestone
gradually reduces, which leads to better sealing perfor-
mance and consequently a stronger cap rock role. The
breakthrough pressure gap between the two kinds of li-
thology is expanded and hence an effective cap-reservoir
rock assemblage for hydrocarbon accumulation is formed.
11
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
Funding
Supported by the China National Science & Technology
Major Project (Grant No. 2017ZX05008006-001); the Major
Project of Science & Technology of China National Petroleum
Corporation (Grant No. 2018A-0104).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Y.S. Ma, D.F. He, X.Y. Cai, B. Liu, Distribution and fundamental science
questions for petroleum geology of marine carbonate in China, Acta
Petrol. Sin. 33 (4) (2017) 1007e1020.
[2] A.J. Shen, Y.N. Chen, S.X. Meng, J.F. Zheng, Z.F. Qiao, X.F. Ni,
J.Y. Zhang, X.N. Wu, The research progress of marine carbonate reser-
voirs in China and its significance for oil and gas exploration, Marine
Origin Petrol. Geo. 24 (4) (2019) 1e14.
[3] W.Z. Zhao, A.J. Shen, J.F. Zheng, Z.F. Qiao, X.F. Wang, J.M. Lu, The
porosity origin of dolostone reservoirs in the Tarim, Sichuan and Ordos
Basins and its implication to reservoir prediction, Sci. China Earth Sci.
44 (9) (2014) 1925e1939.
[4] D.K. Zhong, X.M. Zhu, H.J. Wang, Analysis of characteristics and for-
mation mechanism of high quality clastic rock reservoirs in deep China,
Sci. China Earth Sci. 38 (S1) (2008) 11e18.
[5] J.H. Du, Geological Theory and Exploration Practice of Large Gas Fields
in Ancient Carbonate Rocks, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, 2015,
pp. 1e130.
[6] J.H. Du, Z.C. Wang, C.N. Zou, C.C. Xu, P. Shen, B.M. Zhang, H. Jiang,
S.P. Huang, Discovery of intra-cratonic rift in the Upper Yangtze and its
control effect on the formation of Anyue giant gas field, Acta Pet. Sin. 37
(1) (2016) 1e16.
[7] G.Q. Wei, J.H. Du, C.C. Xu, C.N. Zou, W. Yang, P. Shen, Z.Y. Xie,
J. Zhang, Characteristics and accumulation modes of large gas reservoirs
in Sinian-Cambrian of Gaoshiti-Moxi region, Sichuan Basin, Acta Pet.
Sin. 36 (1) (2015) 1e12.
[8] C.N. Zou, J.H. Du, C.C. Xu, Z.C. Wang, B.M. Zhang, G.Q. Wei,
T.S. Wang, G.S. Yao, S.H. Deng, J.J. Liu, H. Zhou, A.N. Xu, Y. Yang,
H. Jiang, Z.D. Gu, Formation, distribution, resource potential and dis-
covery of the Sinian-Cambrian giant gas field, Sichuan Basin, SW China,
Petrol. Explor. Dev. 41 (3) (2014) 278e293.
[9] X.J. Fan, J. Peng, J.X. Li, D. Chen, F. Li, J.H. Deng, Y. Huang, Z.W. Miu,
Fracture characteristics of ultra-deep reef-bank lithologic gas reservoirs
in the Upper Permian Changxing Formation in Yuanba area, northeastern
Sichuan Basin, Oil Gas Geol. 35 (4) (2014) 511e516.
[10] J. Deng, J.B. Duan, Z.H. Wang, M.F. Wang, Research on the reef char-
acteristic of Changxing Formation in Yuanba area of Northeast Sichuan
province, J. Southwest Petrol. Univ.: Sci. Technol. Edi. 36 (4) (2014)
63e72.
[11] H. Tang, B. Wu, T. Zhang, T. Zhang, R. Luo, Reef-beach reservoir
features of Changxing Formation and its controlling factors in Tieshan-
Longhui of northeastern Sichuan, Geoscience 27 (3) (2013) 644e652.
[12] J.H. Du, Z.M. Wang, Q.M. Li, Exploration of Cambrian-Ordovician
Carbonate Rocks in Tarim Basin, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing,
2010, pp. 155e170.
[13] W.Z. Zhao, A.J. Shen, S.Y. Hu, B.M. Zhang, W.Q. Pan, J.G. Zhou,
Z.C. Wang, Geological conditions and distributional features of large-
scale carbonate reservoirs onshore China, Petrol. Explor. Dev. 39 (1)
(2012) 1e12.
[14] Z.M. Wang, H.W. Xie, Y.Q. Chen, Y.M. Qi, K. Zhang, Discovery and
exploration of Cambrian subsalt dolomite original hydrocarbon reservoir
at Zhongshen-1 Well in Tarim Basin, China Petrol. Expl. 19 (2) (2014)
1e13.
T. Lin, T. Wang, J. Dong et al.
[15] J.Z. Zhang, Z.M. Wang, H.J. Yang, Z.M. Xu, Z.Y. Xiao, Z.X. Li, Origin
and differential accumulation of hydrocarbons in Cambrian sub-salt
dolomite reservoirs in Zhongshen area, Tarim Basin, NW China,
Petrol. Explor. Dev. 44 (1) (2017) 40e47.
[16] J.H. Du, W.Q. Pan, Accumulation conditions and play targets of oil and
gas in the Cambrian subsalt dolomite, Tarim Basin, NW China, Petrol.
Explor. Dev. 43 (3) (2016) 327e339.
[17] H. Yang, J.H. Fu, X.S. Wei, J.F. Ren, Natural gas exploration domains in
Ordovician marine carbonates, Ordos Basin, Acta Pet. Sin. 32 (5) (2011)
733e740.
[18] X.X. Lü, P.P. Chen, K. Chen, J. Zhang, W.W. Qian, Effects of differential
diagenesis of deep carbonate rocks on hydrocarbon zonation and accu-
mulation: a case study of Yingshan Formation on northern slope of
Tazhong Uplift,Tarim Basin, Oil Gas Geol. 40 (5) (2019) 957e971.
[19] X.X. Lü, Y.Q. Qu, H.F. Yu, X.D. Lan, Sealing capacity of carbonate cap
rocks: a case study of Ordovician in northern slope of central Tarim
Basin, Petrol. Geo. Exp. 36 (5) (2014) 532e538.
[20] T. Lin, T.S. Wang, W.Q. Pan, W.F. Yuan, Q.F. Li, W. Ma, The evolution
of the sealing effectiveness of the gypsum during the burial process, Oil
Gas Geol. (2019). http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.4820.TE.20191213.
1118.002.html.
[21] C.S. Lin, H.J. Yang, J.Y. Liu, Z.Z. Cai, L. Peng, X.F. Yang, Y.H. Yang,
Paleotectonic landform and its restriction on the development and dis-
tribution of sedimentary facies in the central uplift of Paleozoic Tarim
Basin, Sci. China Earth Sci. 39 (3) (2009) 306e316.
[22] Y.J. Zhu, A.J. Shen, L.L. Liu, Y.Q. Chen, G. Yu, Tectonic-sedimentary
filling history through later Sinian to mid-Cambrian in Tarim Basin and
its explorational potential, Acta Sedimentol. Sin. 38 (2) (2020) 398e410.
[23] S. Otto, P. Till, K. Hautmut, Development of damage and permeability in
deforming rock salt, Eng. Geol. 61 (2e3) (2001) 163e180.
[24] J.C. Stormont, In situ gas permeability measurements to delineate damage
in rock salt, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (7) (1997) 1055e1064.
[25] A.V. Zharikov, E.B. Lebedev, A.M. Dorfman, V.M. Vitovtova, Effect of
saturating fluid composition on the rock microstructure, porosity,
12
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 6 (2021) 1e12
permeability and Vp under high pressure and temperature, Phys. Chem.
Earth 25 (2) (2000) 215e218.
[26] H.C. Heard, Thermal expansion and inferred permeability of climax
quarts monzonite to 300 MPa and 27.6 C, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 17 (5) (1980) 289e296.
[27] Y.S. Zhao, Z.J. Wan, Y. Zhang, F. Qu, G.Y. Xie, X.J. Wei, W. Ma,
Research and development of 20MN servo-controlled rock triaxial
testing system with high temperature and high pressure, Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 27 (1) (2008) 1e8.
[28] Z.D. Wu, Stability Analysis of Stratified Salt Karst Cavity Considering
Seepage and Time Effect, China University of Mining and Technology
(Beijing), Beijing, 2011.
[29] S.J. Li, Y. Zhou, D.S. Sun, Rock mechanic experiment study of evalu-
ation on cap rock effectiveness, Petrol. Geo. Exp. 35 (5) (2013)
574e578.
[30] J.L. Xie, Y.S. Zhao, Meso-mechanism of permeability decrease or fluc-
tuation of coal and rock with the temperature increase, Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 36 (3) (2017) 543e551.
[31] Y.Q. Hu, Y.S. Zhao, D. Yang, Z.Q. Kang, Experimental study of effect of
temperature on permeability characteristics of lignite, Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 29 (8) (2010) 1585e1590.
[32] Z.Q. Li, X.F. Xian, Study on experiment of coal permeability with
temperature and stress changing, J. Liaoning Tech. Univ.: Nat. Sci. 28
(supplement) (2009) 156e159.
[33] Y.S. Zhao, Z.J. Wan, Y. Zhang, N. Zhang, Z.J. Feng, F.K. Dong, J.W. Wu,
F. Qu, Experimental study of related laws of rock thermal cracking and
permeability, Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 29 (10) (2010) 1970e1976.
[34] Y. Zhou, Z.J. Jin, D.Y. Zhu, Y.S. Yuan, S.J. Li, Current status and
progress in research of hydrocarbon cap rocks, Petrol. Geo. Exp. 34 (3)
(2012) 234e245.
[35] S.J. Li, Y.J. Wo, Y. Zhou, W.X. Liu, Controlling factors affect sealing
capability of Well-developed muddy cap rock, Acta Geol. Sin. 85 (10)
(2011) 1691e1697.