Thomas M. Mitchell, Fleury. M., E. Jahns, Christian David, Tiziana Vanorio, John Browning, J. Billiotte, Ernest H. Rutter, Thierry Reuschlé, J. Wassermann, Pierre Delage, Lionel Esteban, Jop Klaver, Jérôme Fortin, P. J. Polito, G. Berthe, David A. Lockner, Alain Sommier, Reinhard Fink, Qinhong Hu, Philipp Braun, Claudio Madonna, Franck Nono, Philip G. Meredith, A. Amann Hildenbrand, Catherine A. Davy, A.P.S. Selvadurai, G. Boitnott, David Grégoire, R. Lenormand, Didier Loggia, Laurent Perrier, Joel Sarout, B.M. Krooss, Florian Amann, Anthony C. Clark, Didier Lasseux, Yves Jannot, L. Louis, Laboratoire Géosciences et Environnement Cergy (GEC), Fédération INSTITUT DES MATÉRIAUX DE CERGY-PONTOISE (I-MAT), Université de Cergy Pontoise (UCP), Université Paris-Seine-Université Paris-Seine-Université de Cergy Pontoise (UCP), Université Paris-Seine-Université Paris-Seine, Laboratoire de mécanique et matériaux du génie civil (L2MGC), Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH), Ecole Centrale de Lille, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), University of Manchester [Manchester], University of Texas at Arlington [Arlington], New England Research Institutes (NERI), Laboratoire Navier (navier umr 8205), École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l'Aménagement et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR), United States Geological Survey [Reston] (USGS), McGill University, Stanford University [Stanford], Department of Earth Sciences [UCL London], University College of London [London] (UCL), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich [Zürich] (ETH Zürich), Centre de Géosciences (GEOSCIENCES), MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris-PSL Research University (PSL), Institut de physique du globe de Strasbourg (IPGS), Université de Strasbourg (UNISTRA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Transferts, écoulements, fluides, énergétique (TREFLE), Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux 1-École Nationale Supérieure de Chimie et de Physique de Bordeaux (ENSCPB)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Laboratoire de géologie de l'ENS (LGE), Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Département des Géosciences - ENS Paris, École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS Paris)-École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS Paris), Cydarex, Géosciences Montpellier, Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université des Antilles (UA), Université de Montpellier (UM), Gesteinslabor, IFP Energies nouvelles (IFPEN), École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC), Laboratoire des Fluides Complexes et leurs Réservoirs (LFCR), TOTAL FINA ELF-Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour (UPPA)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), University of Texas at Austin [Austin], Laboratoire d'Energétique et de Mécanique Théorique Appliquée (LEMTA ), Université de Lorraine (UL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centrale Lille, Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l'Aménagement et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR)-École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), McGill University = Université McGill [Montréal, Canada], Stanford University, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [Zürich] (ETH Zürich), MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris, Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL), Laboratoire de géologie de l'ENS (LGENS), École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS Paris), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS Paris), Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Université des Antilles (UA)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Laboratoire Énergies et Mécanique Théorique et Appliquée (LEMTA ), and CY Cergy Paris Université (CY)
International audience; Measuring and modelling the permeability of tight rocks remains a challenging task. In addition to the traditional sources of errors that affect more permeable formations (e.g. sample selection, non-representative specimens, disturbance introduced during sample acquisition and preparation), tight rocks can be particularly prone to solid–fluid interactions and thus more sensitive to the methods, procedures and techniques used to measure permeability. To address this problem, it is desirable to collect, for a single material, measurements obtained by different methods and pore fluids. For that purpose, a benchmarking exercise involving 24 laboratories was organized for measuring and modelling the permeability of a single low-permeability material, the Grimsel granodiorite. The objectives of the benchmark were: (i) to compare the results for a given method, (ii) to compare the results between different methods, (iii) to analyse the accuracy of each method, (iv) to study the influence of experimental conditions (especially the nature of pore fluid), (v) to discuss the relevance of indirect methods and models and finally (vi) to suggest good practice for low-permeability measurements. To complement the data set of permeability measurements presented in a companion paper, we focus here on (i) quantitative analysis of microstructures and pore size distribution, (ii) permeability modelling and (iii) complementary measurements of permeability anisotropy and poroelastic parameters. Broad ion beam—scanning electron microscopy, micro-computerized tomography, mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) methods were used to characterize the microstructures and provided the input parameters for permeability modelling. Several models were used: (i) basic statistical models, (ii) 3-D pore network and effective medium models, (iii) percolation model using MICP data and (iv) free-fluid model using NMR data. The models were generally successful in predicting the actual range of measured permeability. Statistical models overestimate the permeability because they do not adequately account for the heterogeneity of the crack network. Pore network and effective medium models provide additional constraints on crack parameters such as aspect ratio, aperture, density and connectivity. MICP and advanced microscopy techniques are very useful tools providing important input data for permeability estimation. Permeability measured—orthogonal to foliation is lower that—parallel to foliation. Combining the experimental and modelling results provide a unique and rich data set.