Pore Compressibility of Shale Formations
- Yuzheng Lan (University of Oklahoma) | Rouzbeh Ghanbarnezhad Moghanloo (University of Oklahoma) | Davud Davudov (University of Oklahoma)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- December 2017
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,778 - 1,789
- 2017.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Pore structure, Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure, Reservoir Compaction, Shale compressibility, Unconventional Petrophysics
- 32 in the last 30 days
- 766 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
This study introduces a novel outlook on a shale-pore system and on the potential effect of pore compressibility on the production performance. We divide porosity of the system into accessible and inaccessible pores, and incorporate inaccessible pores with grains into the part of the rock that is not accessible. In general, accessible pores contribute to flow directly, whereas inaccessible pores do not.
We present a mathematical model that uses mercury-injection capillary pressure (MICP) data to determine the accessible-pore and inaccessible part of the rock (IRP) compressibility as a function of pressure. During MICP testing in a typical shale sample, the rock sample experiences conformance, compression, and intrusion as effective pressure increases. We characterize the compressibility value dependent on MICP data as a function of pressure. The calculated compressibility values for accessible pores generally appear to be much greater (two to three orders of magnitude) than those of IRP.
Next, we evaluate how calculated accessible-pore-compressibility values affect gas recovery in several shale-gas plays. Our results suggest that substitution of total pore compressibility with accessible-pore compressibility can significantly change the reservoir-behavior prediction. The fundamental rock property used in many reservoir-engineering calculations including reserves estimates, reservoir performance, and production forecasting is the total pore-volume (PV) compressibility, which has an approximate value typically within the range of 1×10-6 to 1×10-4 psi-1 (Mahomad 2014). By recognizing the part of the pore system that actually contributes to production and identifying its compressibility, we can substitute total pore compressibility with accessible-pore compressibility. The result changes the value by nearly two orders of magnitude.
The outcome of the paper changes the industry’s take on prediction of reservoir performance, especially the rock-compaction mechanism. This study finds that production caused by rock compaction is in fact much greater than what has often been regarded, which will change the performance evaluation on a great number of reservoirs in terms of economic feasibility.
|File Size||7 MB||Number of Pages||12|
Andersen, M. A. 1988. Predicting Reservoir-Condition PV Compressibility from Hydrostatics Stress Laboratory Data. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (3): 1078–1082. SPE-14213-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14213-PA.
Andersen, M. A. and Jones, F. O. Jr. 1985. A Comparison of Hydrostatic-Stress and Uniaxial-Strain Pore-Volume Compressibilities Using Nonlinear Elastic Theory. Presented at the 26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, 26–28 June. ARMA-85-0403-1.
Bailey, S. 2009. Closure and Compressibility Corrections to Capillary Pressure Data in Shales. Oral presentation given at the Denver Well Logging Society Workshop, Golden, Colorado, 19 October.
Biot, M. A. 1941. General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation. J. Appl. Phys. 12: 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1712886.
Chalmers, R. C., Bustin, R. M., and Power, I. M. 2012. Characterization of Shale Gas Pore Systems by Porosimetry, Pycnometry, Surface Area, and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy/Transmission Electron Microscopy Image Analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig Units. AAPG Bull. 96 (6): 1099–1119. https://doi.org/10.1306/10171111052.
Civan, F. 2011. Transport Properties of Porous Media. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Comisky, J. T., Santiago, M., McCollom, B. et al. 2011. Sample Size Effects on the Application of Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure for Determining the Storage Capacity of Tight Gas and Oil Shales. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–17 November. SPE-149432-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/149432-MS.
Craft, B. C., Hawkins, M. F., and Terry, R. E. 1991. Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Curtis, M. E., Ambrose, R. J., Sondergeld, C. H. et al. 2011. Investigating the Microstructure of Gas Shales by FIB/SEM Tomography & STEM Imaging.
Curtis, M. E., Cardott, B. J., Sondergeld, C. H. et al. 2012. Development of Organic Porosity in the Woodford Shale with Increasing Thermal Maturity. Int. J. Coal Geol. 103 (1 December): 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004.
Dastidar, R. 2007. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Study of Freezing and Thawing of Saturated Porous Media and Application To Shale and Pore Volume Compressibility Estimation. PhD dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Davudov, D., Moghanloo, R. G., and Yuan, B. 2016. Impact of Pore Connectivity and Topology on Gas Productivity in Barnett and Haynesville Shale Plays. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 1–3 August. URTEC-2461331-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2016-2461331.
Davudov, D., Moghanloo, R. G., Lan, Y. et al. 2017. Investigation of Shale Pore Compressibility Impact on Production with Reservoir Simulation. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–16 February. SPE-185059-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185059-MS.
Dobrynin, V.M. 1962. Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some Properties of Sandstones. SPE J. 2 (4): 360–366. SPE-461-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/461-PA.
Ewing, R. P. and Horton, R. 2002. Diffusion in Sparsely Connected Pore Spaces: Temporal and Spatial Scaling. Water Resour. Res. 38 (12): 21-1–21-13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001412.
Geertsma, J. 1966. Problems of Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Production Engineering. Presented at the 1st ISRM Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, 25 September–1 October. ISRM-1CONGRESS-1966-099.
Hall, H. N. 1953. Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks. J Pet Technol 5 (1): 17–19. SPE-953309-G. https://doi.org/10.2118/953309-G.
Hu, Q., Ewing, R. P., and Dultz, S. 2012. Low Pore Connectivity in Natural Rock. J. Contam. Hydrol. 133 (15 May): 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.03.006.
Jizba, L. 1991. Mechanical and Acoustical Properties of Sandstones and Shales. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Kuila, U., Prasad, M., Derkowski, A. et al. 2012. Compositional Controls on Mudrock Pore-Size Distribution: An Example from Niobrara Formation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October. SPE-160141-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/160141-MS.
Laurent, J., Bouteca, M. J., Sarda, J.-P. et al. 1993. Pore-Pressure Influence in the Poroelastic Behavior of Rocks: Experimental Studies and Results. SPE Form Eval 8 (2): 117–122. SPE-20922-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/20922-PA.
Mahomad, B. 2014. Evaluation of Shale Compressibility From NMR and MICP Measurements. Master’s thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Moghanloo, R. G., Yuan, B., Ingrahama, N. et al. 2015. Applying Macroscopic Material Balance to Evaluate Interplay Between Dynamic Drainage Volume and Well Performance in Tight Formations. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27 (2): 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.07.047.
Niandou, H., Shoa, J. F., Henry, J. P. et al. 1997. Laboratory Investigation of the Mechanical Behaviour of Tournemire Shale. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 34 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80029-9.
Potter, P. E., Maynard, J. B., and Depetris, P. J. 2005. Mud and Mudstones: Introduction and Overview. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Shafer, J., and Neasham, J. 2000. Mercury Porosimetery Protocol for Rapid Determination of Petrophysical and Reservoir Quality Properties. Oral presentation of paper SCA2000-21 given at the 2000 International Symposium of Society of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi, 18–22 October.
Tran, H. and Sakhaee-Pour, A. 2017. Viscosity of Shale Gas. Fuel 191 (1 March): 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.11.062.
Washburn, E. W. 1921. Note on a Method of Determining the Distribution of Pore Sizes in a Porous Material. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 7 (4): 115–116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.7.4.115.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, R. G., and Shariff, E. 2016. Integrated Investigation of Dynamic Drainage Volume (DDV) and Inflow Performance Relationship (Transient IPR) to Optimize Multi-Stage Fractured Horizontal Wells in Shale Oil. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 138 (5): 052901–052901-9. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4032237.
Zimmerman, R. 2000. Implications of Static Poroelasticity for Reservoir Compaction. Presented at the 4th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 31 July–3 August. ARMA-2000-0169.
Zimmerman, R., Somerton, W., King, M. 1986. Compressibility of Porous Rocks. J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea. 91 (12): 12765–12777. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB091iB12p12765.