Numerical Study of Shale Gas Flow Behaviour in Reservoir and Hydraulic Fractures

  • Jebraeel Gholinezhad
  • John Senam Fianu
  • Mohamed Galal Hassan
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering book series (BRIEFSPGE)


Some of the inappropriate assumptions that are often made in the use of commercial simulators for shale gas simulations are discussed in this chapter. For shale gas reservoirs characterised by very small pore size network, these approximations could lead to serious errors. Modelling of the geological complexities of shale gas requires the use of appropriate grid structures within the simulator to handle these complexities. Also, implementation of appropriate numerical methods that can adequately solve the set of mathematical equations associated with the simulation of shale gas reservoirs is the key to obtain sensible simulation results. This chapter provides a review of these inherent challenges in shale gas modelling. The concept of instantaneous capillary equilibrium within the pore networks as well as the non-Darcy flow that occurs within the matrix of the pore network is critically reviewed while the existing theories for proppant transport within the fractures are examined.


  1. Al-otaibi A, Studies T, Wu Y (2011) An alternative approach to modeling non-Darcy flow for pressure transient analysis in porous and fractured reservoirs. Soc Pet Eng, SPE, p 149123Google Scholar
  2. Andrade J, Civan F, Devegowda D, Sigal R (2010) Accurate simulation of shale-gas reservoirs. SPE Annu, 19–22.
  3. Andrade J, Civan F, Devegowda D, Sigal R (2011) Design and examination of requirements for a rigorous shale-gas reservoir simulator compared to current shale-gas simulators. SPE Pap. Google Scholar
  4. Aziz K, Settari A (1979) Petroleum reservoir simulation. Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
  5. Barree RD, Conway MW (2004) Beyond beta factors: a complete model for Darcy, Forchheimer, and Trans- Forchheimer flow in porous media. SPE 89325 8.
  6. Barree RD, Conway MW (2009) Multiphase Non-Darcy flow in proppant packs. SPE Prod Oper. 257–268.
  7. Belhaj HA, Agha KR, Nouri AM, Butt SD, Islam MR (2003) Numerical and experimental modeling of non-Darcy flow in porous media. Am Caribb Pet Eng Conf, SPE Lat. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennethum LS, Murad MA, Cushman JH (1997) Modified Darcy’s law, Terzaghi’s effective stress principle and Fick’s law for swelling clay soils. Comput Geotech 20:245–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi ES, Cheema T, Islam MR (1997) A new dual-porosity/dual-permeability model with non-Darcian flow through fractures. J Pet Sci Eng 17:331–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cipolla CL, Lolon EP, Erdle JC, Tathed V (2009) Modeling well performance in shale-gas reservoirs. SPE 125532:19–21. Google Scholar
  11. Cooke CE (1973) Conductivity of fracture proppants in multiple layers. J Pet Technol 25:1101–1107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devegowda D, Civan F, Sigal R (2014) Simulation of shale gas reservoirs incorporating appropriate geometry and the correct physics of capillarity and fluid transport. Project 09122.11.FINAL.RPSEA.
  13. Dontsov EV, Peirce AP (2015) Proppant transport in hydraulic fracturing: crack tip screen-out in KGD and P3D models. Int J Solids Struct 63:206–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ertekin T, Abou-Kassen JH, King GR (2001) Basic applied reservoir simulations. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  15. Ewing RE, Lazarov R, Lyons SL, Papavassiliou DV, Pasciak J, Qin G (1999) Numerical well model for non-Darcy flow through isotropic porous media. Comput Geosci 3:185–204MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Firoozabadi A (1999) Thermodynamics of hydrocarbon reservoirs. McGraw-Hill Education, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Geertsma J (1974) Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in Fluid Flow Through Porous Media. Soc Pet Eng J 14:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinemann ZE, Brand CW, Munka M, Chen YM (1991) Modeling reservoir geometry with irregular grids. SPE Reserv Eng 6:225–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irmay S (1958) On the theoretical derivation of Darcy and Forchheimer formulas. Trans Am Geophys Union 39:702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jayakumar R, Sahai V, Boulis A (2011) A better understanding of finite element simulation for shale gas reservoirs through a series of different case histories. SPE Middle East Unconv Gas Conf Exhib, Proc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lai B, Miskimins JL, Wu Y (2012) Non-Darcy porous media flow according to the Barree and Conway Model: laboratory and numerical modeling studies. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/122611-PA
  22. Lai B, Miskimins JL, Wu Y-S (2013) Non-Darcy porous-media flow according to the Barree and Conway model: laboratory and numerical-modeling studies. Soc Pet Eng J 17:70–79. Google Scholar
  23. Li D, Engler TW (2001) Literature review on correlations of the non-Darcy coefficient. SPE Permian Basin Oil Gas Recover Conf, 1–8.
  24. Liu X, Civan F, Evans RD (1995) Correlation of the non-Darcy flow coefficient. J Can Pet Technol 34:50–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Logan RW, Lee RL, Tek MR (1985) Microcomputer gas reservoir simulation using finite element methods. Google Scholar
  26. Martins JP, Milton-Tayler D, Leung HK (1990) The effects of non-Darcy flow in propped hydraulic fractures. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/20709-MS
  27. Moridis GJ, Blasingame TA, Freeman CM (2010) Analysis of mechanisms of flow in fractured tight-gas and shale-gas reservoirs. SPE Lat Am Caribb Pet Eng Conf Proc 2:1310–1331. Google Scholar
  28. Nacul EC (1991) Use of domain decomposition and local grid refinement in reservoir simulation. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Neyval CR, Souza AF, De Lopes RHC (2001) Petroleum reservoir simulation using finite volume method with non -structured grids and parallel distributed computing. 22nd CILANCE, Campinas, Brasil, November 2001.
  30. Nguyen T (1986) Experimental study of non-Darcy flow through perforations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/15473-MS
  31. Palagi CL, Aziz K (1994) Use of Voronoi grid in reservoir simulation. SPE Adv Technol Ser 2:69–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubin B (2010) Accurate simulation of non Darcy flow in stimulated fractured shale reservoirs. SPE Conf, 1–6.
  33. Scheidegger AE (1974) The physics of flow through porous media, 3rd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and BuffalozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Shiozawa S, McClure M (2016) Simulation of proppant transport with gravitational settling and fracture closure in a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator. J Pet Sci Eng 138:298–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun J, Schechter D, Texas A, Huang C (2016) Grid-sensitivity analysis and comparison between unstructured perpendicular bisector and structured tartan/local-grid-refinement grids for hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in eagle ford formation with complicated natural fractures. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/177480-PA
  36. Tsai K, Fonseca E, Lake E, Degaleesan S (2013) Advanced computational modeling of proppant settling in water fractures for shale gas production. SPE J 18:50–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu YS, Lai B, Miskimins JL, Fakcharoenphol P, Di Y (2011) Analysis of multiphase non-Darcy flow in porous media. Transp Porous Media 88:205–223. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang L, Li D, Wang L, Lu D (2015) Simulation of gas transport in tight/shale gas reservoirs by a multicomponent model based on PEBI grid. J ChemGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang Z, Chen Q (2007) Comparison of the Eulerian and Lagrangian methods for predicting particle transport in enclosed spaces. Atmos Environ 41:5236–5248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jebraeel Gholinezhad
    • 1
  • John Senam Fianu
    • 1
  • Mohamed Galal Hassan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations