Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:05:26.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A dual-tube model for gas dynamics in fractured nanoporous shale formations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2014

I. Lunati  and
S. H. Lee
I. Lunati*
Affiliation:
Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne, Géopolis 3771, UNIL-Mouline, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
S. H. Lee
Affiliation:
Chevron Energy Technology Co., 1500 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gas flow through fractured nanoporous shale formations is complicated by a hierarchy of structural features (ranging from nanopores to microseismic and hydraulic fractures) and by several transport mechanisms that differ from the standard viscous flow used in reservoir modelling. In small pores, self-diffusion becomes more important than advection; also, slippage effects and Knudsen diffusion might become relevant at low densities. We derive a nonlinear effective diffusion coefficient that describes the main transport mechanisms in shale-gas production. In dimensionless form, this coefficient depends only on a geometric factor (or dimensionless permeability) and on the kinetic model that describes the gas. To simplify the description of the complex structure of fractured shales, we observe that the production rate is controlled by the flow from the shale matrix (which has the smallest diffusivity) into the fracture network, which is assumed to produce instantaneously. Therefore, we propose to model the flow in the shale matrix and estimate the production rate with a simple bundle-of-dual-tubes model (BoDTM), in which each tube is characterized by two diameters (one for transport and the other for storage). The solution of a single tube is approximately self-similar at early time, but not at late time, when the gas flux decays exponentially owing to the finite length of the tube. To construct a BoDTM, a reliable estimate of the joint statistics of the matrix-porosity parameters is required. This can be either inferred from core measurements or postulated on the basis of some a priori assumptions when information from laboratory and field measurements is scarce. By comparison with field production data from the Barnett shale-gas field, we demonstrate that BoDTM can be calibrated to estimate structural parameters of the shale formation and to predict the cumulative production of shale gas. Our framework has enough flexibility to construct models of increasing complexity that can be employed in the presence of a complex dataset or when more information is available.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Gas dynamics Micro-/Nano-fluid dynamics: Microfluidics Micro-/Nano-fluid dynamics: Micro-/Nano-fluid dynamics
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 757 , 25 October 2014 , pp. 943 - 971
Copyright
© 2014 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baihly, J., Altman, R., Malpani, R. & Luo, F.2010 Shale gas production decline trend comparison over time and basins. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, SPE 135555.Google Scholar
Bear, J. 1972 Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bjørlykke, K. 2010 Petroleum Geoscience: From Sedimentary Environments to Rock Physics. Springer.Google Scholar
Blunt, M. J., Bijeljic, B., Dong, H., Gharbi, O., Iglauer, S., Mostaghimi, P., Paluszny, A. & Pentland, C. 2013 Pore-scale imaging and modeling. Adv. Water Resour. 51, 197–216.Google Scholar
Blunt, M. & King, P. 1990 Macroscopic parameters for simulation of pore scale flow. Phys. Rev. A 42, 4780–4787.Google Scholar
Brown, G. P., Dinardo, A., Cheng, G. K. & Sherwood, T. K. 1946 The flow of gases in pipes at low pressures. J. Appl. Phys. 17, 802–813.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. & Cowling, T. G. 1939 The Mathematical Theory of Nonuniform Gases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cui, X., Bustin, A. M. M. & Bustin, R. M. 2009 Measurements of gas permeability and diffusivity of tight reservoir rocks: different approaches and their application. Geofluids 9, 208–223.Google Scholar
Curtiss, C. F. & Hirschfelder, J. O. 1949 Transport properties of multicomponent gas mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 17, 550–555.Google Scholar
Darabi, H., Ettehad, A., Javadpour, F. & Sepehrnoori, K. 2012 Gas flow in ultra-tight shale strata. J. Fluid Mech. 710, 641–658.Google Scholar
Dong, H.2007 Micro/CT imaging and pore network extraction. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
Epstein, N. 1989 On tortuosity and the tortuosity factor in flow and diffusion through porous media. Chem. Engng Sci. 44, 777–779.Google Scholar
Fatt, I. 1956 The network model of porous media: 3. Dynamic properties of networks with tube size distribution. Trans. AIME 207, 164–169.Google Scholar
Gale, J.2011 FRAC Consortium Meeting, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Hirschfelder, J., Curtiss, C. F. & Bird, R. B. 1954 Molecular Theory of Gases and Liquids. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. D.2013a Drill, baby, drill: can unconventional fuels usher in a new era of energy abundance? Tech Rep. Post Carbon Institute.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. D. 2013b A reality check on the shale revolution. Nature 494, 307–308.Google Scholar
Javadpour, F. 2009 Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas flow in mudrocks (shales and siltstone). J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 48, 16–21.Google Scholar
Koplik, J. 1982 Creeping flow in two-dimensional networks. J. Fluid Mech. 119, 219–247.Google Scholar
Leahy-Dios, A., Das, M., Agarwal, A. & Kaminsky, R. D.2011 Modeling of transport phenomena and multicomponent sorption for shale gas and coalbed methane in an unsaturated grid simulator. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, SPE 147352.Google Scholar
Lee, S. H., Lough, M. F. & Jensen, C. L. 2001 Hierarchical modeling of flow in naturally fractured formations with multiple length scales. Water Resour. Res. 37, 443–455.Google Scholar
Lee, S. H., Padmanabhan, L. & Al-Sunaidi, H. 1996 Simulation of linear displacement experiments on massively parallel computers. SPE J. 1, 327–340.Google Scholar
Lough, M. F., Lee, S. H. & Kamath, J. 1998 An efficient boundary integral formulation for flow through fractured porous media. J. Comput. Phys. 143, 462–483.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. C. 1879 On stresses in rarified gases arising from inequalities of temperature. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 170, 231–256.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. & Norton, M. 2012 Enhancing shale gas reservoir characterization using hydraulic fracture microseismic data. First Break 30, 95–101.Google Scholar
Meyers, A. L. & Monson, P. A. 2002 Adsorption in porous materials at high pressure: theory and experiment. Langmuir 18, 10261–10273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzek, T. W., Male, F. & Marder, M. 2013 Gas production in the Barnett shale obeys a simple scaling theory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19731–19736.Google Scholar
Poling, B. E., Prausnitz, J. M. & O’Connell, J. P. 2000 Properties of Gases and Liquids. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pratikno, H., Reese, D. E. & Maguire, M. M.2013 Production analysis in the Barnett shale – field example for reservoir characterization using public data. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LS, SPE 166176.Google Scholar
Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H. F., Cruden, B. A. & Meyyappan, M. 2003 Modeling gas flow through microchannels and nanopores. J. Appl. Phys. 93, 4870–4879.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S., Jupe, A., Langan, R. & Rosca, A.2012 Uncertainty in microseismic event source locations associated with a fracture stimulation in a tight sand. In Proceedings of the Istanbul International Geophysical Conferences and Oil & Gas Exhibition, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Swami, V. & Settari, A.2012 A pore scale gas flow model for shale gas reservoir. In Proceedings of the Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, SPE 155756.Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration 2013a Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf.Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration 2013b Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/.Google Scholar
Vázquez, J. L. 2007 The Porous Medium Equation – Mathematical Theory. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Vermylen, J. P. & Zoback, M.2011 Hydraulic fracturing, microseismic magnitudes and stress evolution in the Barnett shale, Texas, USA. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, SPE 140507.Google Scholar
Walls, J. D. & Sinclair, S. W. 2011 Eagle Ford shale reservoir properties from digital rock physics. First Break 29, 97–101.Google Scholar
Welty, J. R., Wicks, C. E., Wilson, R. E. & Rorrer, G. L. 2007 Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer. Wiley.Google Scholar
Zoback, M., Kitasei, S. & Copithorne, B.July 2010 Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development. Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar