Advertisement

Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp 585–611 | Cite as

Apparent Permeability and Gas Flow Behavior in Carboniferous Shale from the Qaidam Basin, China: An Experimental Study

  • Jun Gao
  • Qingchun YuEmail author
  • Xia Lu
Article

Abstract

Shale can act as an unconventional gas reservoir with low permeability and complex seepage characteristics. Study of the apparent permeability and percolation behavior of shale gas is important in understanding the permeability of shale reservoirs, to evaluate formation damage, to develop gas reservoirs, and to design wells. This study simulated methane percolation at 298.15 K under inlet pressures ranging from 0.2 to 4 MPa and a constant outlet pressure of 0.1 MPa to investigate shale gas percolation behavior and apparent permeability. Five representative shale cores from the Carboniferous Hurleg and Huitoutala formations in the eastern Qaidam Basin, China, were analyzed. Each experiment measured the volume flow rate of methane and the inlet pressure. Pseudopressure approach was used to analyze high-velocity flow in shale samples, and apparent permeability at different pressures was calculated using the traditional method. A nonlinear apparent permeability model that considers diffusion and slippage is established from theory and experimental data fitting, and the shale gas flow characteristics affected by slippage and diffusion are analyzed. The results indicate that the pseudopressure formulation that considers the effect of gas properties on high-velocity flow produces a more accurate linear representation of the experimental data. The apparent gas permeability of shale consists of contributions from Darcy permeability, slippage, and diffusion. The apparent permeability and gas flow behavior in the studied shales strongly depended on pressure. The diffusion contribution increased greatly as pressure decreased from 2 to 0.2 MPa, and the smaller the shale permeability, the greater the relative contribution of diffusion flow. At pressures greater than 2 MPa, slip flow contributes \(\sim \)20% of the total flux, Darcy flow contributes up to 70%, and diffusion makes only a minor contribution. This study provides useful information for future studies of the mechanism of shale gas percolation and the exploration and development of Qaidam Basin shale gas specifically.

Keywords

Apparent gas permeability Real gas deviation factor Slip flow Diffusion flow Carboniferous shale Qaidam basin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Nos. 40772208 and 41272387), and the China Geological Survey program (Nos. 20120113040000-3 and 1212011120964) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Amann-Hildenbrand, A., Ghanizadeh, A., Krooss, B.M.: Transport properties of unconventional gas systems. Mar. Pet. Geol. 31, 90–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey Jr., H.J., Crawford, P.B.: The flow of real gases through porous media. J. Pet. Technol. 18(05), 624–636 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beskok, A., Karniadakis, G.E.: A model for flows in channels, pipes, and ducts at micro and nano scales. Microscale Thermophys. Eng. 3, 43–77 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtis, M.E., Ambrose, R.J., Sondergeld, C.H., Rai, C.S.: Investigation of the relationship between organic porosity and thermal maturity in the Marcellus shale. In: Paper SPE 144370 presented at the 2011 SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14–16 June (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Civan, F.: Effective correlation of apparent gas permeability in tight porous media. Transp. Porous Media 82, 375–384 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Civan, F., Chandra, S.R., Sondergeld, C.H.: Shale gas permeability and diffusivity inferred by improved formulation of relevant retention and transport mechanisms. Transp. Porous Med. 86, 925–944 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, G.R.L., Ross, D.J.K., Bustin, R.M.: Geological controls on matrix permeability of Devonian Gas Shales in the Horn River and Liard basins, northeastern British Columbia. Canada. Int. J. Coal Geol. 103, 120–131 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. China National Petroleum Company: SY/ T 5336–2006: Practices for Core Analysis. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Civan, F., Evans, R.D.: Determining the parameters of the Forchheimer equation from pressure-squared vs. pseudopressure formulations. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 1(01), 43–46 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, F.F., Duan, Y.G., Wang, K., Li, X.D., Liao, Y.: A novel pressure transient response model considering multiple migration mechanisms in shale gas reservoir. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 22, 321–334 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Civan, F.: A triple-mechanism fractal model with hydraulic dispersion for gas permeation in tight reservoirs. In: Paper SPE 74368 presented at the 2002 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico. 10–12 February (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Chen, N.Y., Degnan, T.F., Smith, C.M.: Molecular Transport and Reaction in Zeolites. Wiley, NewYork (1994)Google Scholar
  13. Darabi, H., Ettehad, A., Javadpour, F., Sepehrnoori, K.: Gas flow in ultra-tight shale strata. J. Fluid Mech. 710, 641–658 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deng, J., Zhu, W.Y., Ma, Q.: A new seepage model for shale gas reservoir and productivity analysis of fractured well. Fuel 124, 232–240 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etminan, S.R., Javadpour, F., Maini, B.B., Chen, Z.X.: Measurement of gas storage processes in shale and of the molecular diffusion coefficient in kerogen. Int. J. Coal Geol. 123, 10–19 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, C.M., Moridis, G.J., Blasingame, T.A.: A numerical study of microscale flow behavior in tight gas and shale gas. In: Paper SPE 141125, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September (2011)Google Scholar
  17. Firouzi, M., Alnoaimi, K., Kovscek, A., Wilcox, J.: Klinkenberg effect on prediction and measuring helium permeability in gas shales. Int. J. Coal Geol. 123, 62–68 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fathi, E., Tinni, A., Akkutlu, I.Y.: Corretion to Klinkenberg slippage theory for gas flow in nano-capillaries. Int. J. Coal Geol. 10(3), 51–59 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghanizadeh, A., Gasparik, M., Amann-Hildenbrand, A., et al.: Experimental study of fluid transport processes in the matrix system of the European organic-rich shales: I. Scandinavian Alum Shale. Mar. Pet. Geol. 51, 79–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heller, R., Vermylen, J., Zoback, M.: Experimental investigation of matrix permeability of gas shales. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 98(5), 975–995 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. Howard, J.J.: Porosimetry measurement of shale fabric and its relationship to illite/smectite diagenesis. Clays Clay Miner. 39(4), 355–361 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt, J.K., Park, H.G., Wang, Y.M., Staderman, M., Artyukhin, A.B., Grigoropoulous, C.P., Noy, A., Bakajin, O.: Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometre carbon nanotubes. Science 312, 134–1047 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heidemann, R.A., Jeje, A.A., Mohtadi, F.: An Introduction to the Properties of Fluids and Solids. University of Calgary Press, Calgary (1984)Google Scholar
  24. Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., Unsworth, M.: Nanoscale gas flow in shale sediments. Can. Pet. Technol. 46(10), 55–61 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Javadpour, F.: Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas flow in mudrocks (shales and siltstone). J. Can. Pet. Technol. 48(8), 16–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Javadpour, F., McClure, M., Naraghi, M.E.: Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale. Fuel 160, 549–559 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klinkenberg, L.J.: The permeability of porous media to liquid and gases. API Drill. Prod. Pract. 41, 200–213 (1941)Google Scholar
  28. Kaviany, M.: Principles of heat transfer in porous media. 2ED. New York: Springer. ISBN: 0387945504 (1995)Google Scholar
  29. Loucks, R.G., Reed, R.M., Ruppel, S.C., Jarvie, D.M.: Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. J. Sediment. Res. 79, 848–861 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landry, C.J., Prodanović, M., Eichhubl, P.: Direct simulation of supercritical gas flow in complex nanoporous media and prediction of apparent permeability. Int. J. Coal Geol. 159, 120–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, Y.J., Sun, Y.L., Chang, C., et al.: Prospects of Carboniferous shale gas exploitation in the eastern Qaidam Basin. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition) 88, 620–634 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. Liu, C.L., Ma, Y.S., Zhou, G., Yin, C.M., Du, J.J., Gong, W.B.: Evidence for the carboniferous hydrocarbon generation in Qaidam basin. Acta Pet. Sin. 33, 925–931 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. Lv, Q.F., Wang, E.Z., Liu, X.L., Wang, S.J.: Determining the intrinsic permeability of tight porus media based on bivelocity hydrodynetics. Microfluid. Nanofluidics 16, 841–848 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. Mbia, E.N., Fabricius, I.L., Krogsboll, A., Frykman, P., Dalhoff, F.: Permeability, compressibility and porosity of Jurassic shale from the Norwegian-Danish Badin. Pet. Geosci. 20, 257–281 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Majumder, M., Chopra, N., Andrews, R., Hinds, B.J.: Enhanced flow in carbon nanotubes. Nature 438, 44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehmani, A., Prodanovic, M., Javadpour, F.: Multiscale, multiphysics network modeling of shale matrix gas flows. Transp. Porous Med. 99, 377–390 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ma, Y.S., Yin, C.M., Liu, C.L., Du, J.J., Cheng, H.Y., Fan, T.Y.: The progress of carboniferous oil and gas investigation and assessment in Qaidam basin. Acta Geosci. Sin. 33, 135–144 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. Mehmani, Ayaz: Prodanović, Maša: The application of sorption hysteresis in nano-petrophysics using multiscale multiphysics network models. Int. J. Coal Geol. 128, 96–108 (2014a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mehmani, A: A pore scale analysis of restricted diffusion in shale gas media. In: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTEC) (2014b)Google Scholar
  40. Mason, E.A., Malinauskas, A.P.: Gas Transport in Porous Media: The Dusty-gas Model. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1983)Google Scholar
  41. Niu, C., Hao, Y.Z., Li, D.L., Lu, D.T.: Second-order gas-permeability correlation of shale during slippage flow. Soc. Pet. Eng. SPE J. Paper 168226(19), 786–792 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. Naraghi, M.E., Javadpour, F.: A stochastic permeability model for the shale-gas systems. Int. J. Coal Geol. 140, 111–124 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H.F., Cruden, B.A., Meyyappan, M.: Modeling gas flow through microchannels and nanopores. J. Appl. Phys. 93(8), 4870–4879 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sakhaee-Pour, A., Bryant, S.: Gas permeability of shale. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 15(4), 401–409 (2012). doi: 10.2118/146944-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh, H., Javadpour, F.: Langmuir slip-Langmuir sorption permeability model of shale. Fuel 164, 28–37 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shabro, V., Torres, V.C., Javadpour, F.: Numerical simulation of shale-gas production: from pore-scale modeling of slippage-flow, knudsen diffusion and Langmuir desorption to reservoir modeling of compressible fluid. In: Paper SPE 144355 Presented at the 2011 SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14–16 June (2011)Google Scholar
  47. Scheidegger, A.E.: The Physics of Flow through Porous Media, 3ED. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1974)Google Scholar
  48. Tanikawa, W., Shimamoto, T.: Comparison of Klinkenberg-corrected gas permeability and water permeability in sedimentary. Min. Sci. 46, 229–338 (2009)Google Scholar
  49. Tang, G.H., Tao, W.Q., He, Y.L.: Gas slippage effect on microscale flow using the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. E. 72, 056301 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vivek, S.M. Wami, Settari, A.: A pore scale gas flow model for shale gas reservoir. In: Paper SPE 155756 Presented at the 2012 SPE American Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 5–7 June (2012)Google Scholar
  51. Wang, F.P., Reed, R.M.: Pore networks and fluid flow in gas shales. Paper SPE 124253 Presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–7 October (2009)Google Scholar
  52. Wang, Y.J., Wang, C.J., Gao, J.B.: A research of Gas slippage in low permeability porous media. Acta Pet. Sin. 16(3), 101–105 (1995)Google Scholar
  53. Wei, H.G., Yue, X.A., Zhang, L., Ma, G.L., li, L.: Experimental method to measure permeability of rock with super-low permeability. Pet. Geol. Oilfield Dev. Daqing 30(3), 93–96 (2011)Google Scholar
  54. Wu, Y.S., Pruess, K., Persoff, P.: Gas flow in porous media with Klinkenberg’s effect. Transp. Porous Media. 32, 117–137 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang, D.K., Wei, J.P., Fu, Q.C., Liu, Y., Xia, Y.L.: Percolation law and permeability calculation of coal gas based on Klinkenberg effect. J. Cent. South Univ 22, 1973–1978 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, W.-M., Meng, G., Wei, X.: A review on slip models for gas microflows. Microfluid. Nanofluidics 13(6), 845–882 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Water Resources and EnvironmentChina University of GeosciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations