Advertisement

Pore Connectivity Between Organic and Inorganic Matter in Shale: Network Modeling of Mercury Capillary Pressure

  • Ali Afsharpoor
  • Farzam Javadpour
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Each of the two major mineral components found in shale samples—organic matter (OM) and inorganic matter (iOM)—has a distinct pore system revealed by scanning electron microscope images, low-pressure nitrogen adsorption, and high-pressure mercury injection tests. Although a vast amount of research has been conducted to detect and measure pore sizes in OM and iOM separately, the connectivity of the pores in these two components remains unclear. In permeability models, pore connectivity between OM and iOM components plays an important role in studying and predicting fluid flow. We studied pore connectivity between OM and iOM by developing pore-network models to mimic the composite nature of distributed OM patches in shale. Input parameters to generate network models were porosity, pore- and throat-size distribution, and total organic content. Mercury injection and capillary-pressure curves were then simulated through generated network models using percolation theory. To study the effects of pore connectivity between OM and iOM, we changed the size and locale of OM patches in the generated network models. Simulation results showed that the locale of OM affects mercury saturation (location and numbers of invaded pores) at given applied pressures. To study the effect of pore-size overlap between OM and iOM pores, we simulated mercury injection for two groups of constructed pore networks: non-overlapping and overlapping. In non-overlapping cases, first all iOM pores were invaded with mercury; then, only OM pores at very high pressure were invaded. In overlapping cases, OM and iOM pores can be invaded simultaneously because some of the pores have similar sizes in both components. The simulated capillary-pressure curves show distinct behavior in the non-overlapping and overlapping cases. Non-overlapping capillary-pressure curves show a sudden increase when OM pores are invaded, whereas overlapping capillary-pressure curves are smoother. Results of this work increase understanding of the connectivity of pores from measured capillary-pressure curves for further implementation in permeability-predictive models.

Keywords

Nanopore Shale Organic matter Mudrock Pore connectivity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Both authors contributed equally to this work. FJ conceived the problem and supervised the project. AA performed the modeling. AA and FJ drafted the manuscript. This work was supported partly by the NanoGeosciences Laboratory and by the Mudrock Systems Research Laboratory (MSRL) consortium at the Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of Texas at Austin. MSRL member companies are Anadarko, BP, Cenovus, Centrica, Chesapeake, Chevron, Cima, Cimarex, Concho, ConocoPhillips, Cypress, Devon, Encana, Eni, EOG, Equinor (formerly “Statoil”), EXCO, ExxonMobil, Hess, Husky, Kerogen, Marathon, Murphy, Newfield, Penn Virginia, Penn West, Pioneer, Samson, Shell, Talisman, Texas American Resources, The Unconventionals, US Enercorp, Valence, and YPF. We would like to thank Drs. S. Ruppel and S. Peng for their constructive comments. Publication was authorized by the Director, Bureau of Economic Geology.

References

  1. Afsharpoor, A., Javadpour, F.: Liquid slip flow in a network of shale noncircular nanopores. Fuel 180, 580–590 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afsharpoor, A., Javadpour, F., Wu, J., Ko, L., Liang, Q.: Network modeling of liquid flow in Yanchang shale. Interpretation 5(2), SF99–SF107 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Kharusi, A.S., Blunt, M.J.: Multiphase flow predictions from carbonate pore space images using extracted network models. Water Resour. Res. 44, W06S01 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Raoush, R., Thompson, K.E., Willson, C.S.: Comparison of network generation techniques for unconsolidated porous media. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 1687–1700 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blunt, M.J., Bijeljic, B., Dong, H., Gharbi, O., Iglauer, S., Mostaghimi, P., Paluszny, A., Pentland, C.: Pore-scale imaging and modeling. Adv. Water Resour. 51, 197–216 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blunt, M.J., King, P.: Macroscopic parameters from simulations of pore scale flow. Phys. Rev. A 42, 4780–4787 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blunt, M.J., Scher, H.: Pore-level modeling of wetting. Phys. Rev. E 52, 6387–6403 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant, S.L., Mellor, D.W., Cade, C.A.: Physically representative network models of transport in porous-media. AIChE J. 39, 387–396 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clerke, E.A., Mueller, H.W., Phillips, E.C., et al.: Application of Thomeer hyperbolas to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir properties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D Limestone, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: a “Rosetta Stone” approach. GeoArabia 13(4), 113–160 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. Darabi, H., Ettehad, A., Javadpour, F., Sepehrnoori, K.: Gas flow in ultra-tight shale strata. J. Fluid Mech. 710, 641–658 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fatt, I.: The network model of porous media I. Capillary pressure characteristics. Trans. AIME 207, 144–159 (1956)Google Scholar
  12. Fawzi, A., Ford, M., Coleman, M.: Tight oil production pushes U.S. crude supply to over 10% of world total. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15571 (2014). Accessed 8 Aug 2017
  13. Gibbs, J.W.: The Collected Works of J. Willard Gibbs. Yale University Press, New Haven (1957)Google Scholar
  14. Hu, H., Zhang, T., Wiggins-Camacho, J., Ellis, G.S., Lewan, D.M., Zhang, X.: Experimental investigation of changes in methane adsorption of bitumen-free Woodford Shale with thermal maturation induced by hydrous pyrolysis. Mar. Pet. Geol. 59, 114–128 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Javadpour, F., Ettehadtavakkoli, A.: Gas transport processes in shales. In: Rezaee, R. (ed.) Fundamentals of Gas Shale Reservoirs. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)Google Scholar
  16. Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., Unsworth, M.: Nanoscale gas flow in shale sediments. JCPT 46, 55–61 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Kale, S., Rai, C.S., Sondergeld, C.H.: Rock typing in gas shales. SPE 134539, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 Sept (2010)Google Scholar
  18. Kalová, J., Mareš, R.: Size dependences of surface tension. Int. J. Thermophys. 36, 1–7 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindquist, W.B., Venkatarangan, A., Dunsmuir, J., Wong, T.F.: Pore and throat size distributions measured from synchrotron X-ray tomographic images of Fontainebleau sandstones. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105, 21509–215027 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu, H.M., Jiang, Q.: Size-dependent surface tension and Tolman’s length of droplets. Langmuir 21, 779–781 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehmani, A., Prodanovic, M., Javadpour, F.: Multiscale, multiphysics network modeling of shale matrix gas flows. Transp. Porous Media 99, 377–390 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naraghi, M.E., Javadpour, F.: A stochastic permeability model for the shale-gas systems. Int. J. Coal Geol. 140, 111–124 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naraghi, M.E., Javadpour, F., Ko, T.K.: An object-based shale permeability model: non-Darcy gas flow, sorption, and surface diffusion effects. Transp. Porous Media 123(3), 1573–1634 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-017-0992-z Google Scholar
  24. Pak, T., et al.: Multiscale pore-network representation of heterogeneous carbonate rocks. Water Resour. Res. 52(7), 5433–5441 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peng, S., Zhang, T., Loucks, R.G., Shultz, J.: Application of mercury injection capillary pressure to mudrocks: conformance and compression corrections. Mar. Pet. Geol. 88, 30–40 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perrin, C.L., Tardy, P.J., Sorbie, K.S., Crawshaw, J.C.: Experimental and modeling study of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluid flow in pore network micromodels. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 295, 542–550 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sakhaee-Pour, A., Bryant, S.: Gas permeability of shale. Adv. Water Resour. 15, 401–409 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. Saraji, S., Piri, M.: The representative sample size in shale oil rocks and nano-scale characterization of transport properties. Int. J. Coal Geol. 146, 45–54 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorbie, K.S., Clifford, P.J., Jones, E.W.: The rheology of pseudoplastic fluids in porous media using network modeling. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 130(2), 508–534 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tolman, R.C.: The effect of droplet size on surface tension. J. Chem. Phys. 17, 333–337 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valvatne, P.H., Blunt, M.J.: Predictive pore-scale modeling of two-phase flow in mixed-wet media. Water Resour. Res. 40(7), W07406 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, S., Javadpour, F., Qihong, F.: Confinement correction to mercury intrusion capillary pressure of shale nanopores. Sci. Rep. (Nat.) 6, 20160 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of GeosciencesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations