Reservoir simulation of free and adsorbed gas production from shale

Abstract Shale gas has become a key natural gas resource and has been a great success in the USA and a few other countries. The gas production behaviour from shale is different to that from conventional gas reservoirs or coal seam reservoirs, primarily because of the different gas storage and flow behaviours in shale. Gas is stored in shale mainly as adsorbed gas in the pores of organic matter and clay minerals and as free gas compressed in other pores. Thus to understand how free and adsorbed gas contribute to the total gas production is a key question for shale gas reservoir engineering. One method to answer this question is by using reservoir simulation; however, this will require a reservoir simulator representing the shale gas storage and flow behaviours. In this work, a triple porosity model was applied in the reservoir simulator SIMED II, which was designed for dual porosity coal seam reservoirs, to account for both gas storage mechanisms of adsorption and free gas. A unique aspect of this new development is that the adsorbed gas, matrix free gas and fracture free gas are identified as different gas types but having the same gas properties. Thus the flow and production of gases with different storage mechanisms are directly identified in the simulation and output. The developed simulator was validated through history matching production data of a vertical well from the Barnett Shale. Then a series of parameter sensitivity analyses was carried out to investigate the impact of reservoir properties on adsorbed and free gas production. The results show that the contribution of adsorbed gas on the total gas production is generally low and is dependent on many factors such as the reservoir permeability, porosity and adsorption behaviour, and hydraulic fracturing effect.

[1]  J. Curtis.  Fractured shale-gas systems , 2002 .

[2]  John Killough,et al.  Beyond dual-porosity modeling for the simulation of complex flow mechanisms in shale reservoirs , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[3]  I. Langmuir.  THE ADSORPTION OF GASES ON PLANE SURFACES OF GLASS, MICA AND PLATINUM. , 1918 .

[4]  G. David,et al.  Gas productive fractured shales; an overview and update , 2000 .

[5]  Luke D. Connell,et al.  Impact of coal seam as interlayer on CO2 storage in saline aquifers: A reservoir simulation study , 2011 .

[6]  Yu-Shu Wu,et al.  Numerical Simulation of Low Permeability Unconventional Gas Reservoirs , 2014 .

[7]  J. E. Warren,et al.  The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs , 1963 .

[8]  Luke D. Connell,et al.  Experimental study and modelling of methane adsorption and diffusion in shale , 2014 .

[9]  Hanqiao Jiang,et al.  The impact of diffusion type on multiscale discrete fracture model numerical simulation for shale gas , 2014 .

[10]  Hassan Dehghanpour,et al.  A Triple Porosity Model for Shale Gas Reservoirs , 2011 .

[11]  B. Rubin,et al.  Accurate Simulation of Non Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fractured Shale Reservoirs , 2010 .

[12]  Khaled A. M. Gasem,et al.  Adsorption of methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and their mixtures on wet Tiffany coal , 2005 .

[13]  C. Cipolla,et al.  Reservoir Modeling in Shale-Gas Reservoirs , 2010 .

[14]  G. R. King,et al.  Numerical simulation of the transient behavior of coal-seam degasification wells , 1986 .

[15]  Ebrahim Fathi,et al.  Multi-component gas transport and adsorption effects during CO2 injection and enhanced shale gas recovery , 2014 .

[16]  Shahab D. Mohaghegh,et al.  Reservoir modeling of shale formations , 2013 .

[17]  George J. Moridis,et al.  A numerical study of performance for tight gas and shale gas reservoir systems , 2013 .

[18]  R. Marc Bustin,et al.  Characterization of gas shale 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 , 2012 .

[19]  Gudmundur S. Bodvarsson,et al.  A new lumped-parameter model for flow in unsaturated dual-porosity media , 1996 .

[20]  Michael J. Mayerhofer,et al.  Integration of Microseismic-Fracture-Mapping Results With Numerical Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale , 2006 .

[21]  Farzam Javadpour,et al.  Numerical Simulation of Shale-Gas Production: From Pore-Scale Modeling of Slip-Flow, Knudsen Diffusion, and Langmuir Desorption to Reservoir Modeling of Compressible Fluid , 2011 .

[22]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  Pore structure characterization of North American shale gas reservoirs using USANS/SANS, gas adsorption, and mercury intrusion , 2013 .

[23]  U. Kuila,et al.  Specific surface area and pore‐size distribution in clays and shales , 2013 .

[24]  D. Elsworth,et al.  Multiporosity/multipermeability approach to the simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs , 1993 .

[25]  Tongwei Zhang,et al.  Effect of organic-matter type and thermal maturity on methane adsorption in shale-gas systems , 2012 .

[26]  Faruk Civan,et al.  Accurate Simulation of Shale-Gas Reservoirs , 2010 .

[27]  D. Peng,et al.  A New Two-Constant Equation of State , 1976 .

[28]  Luke D. Connell,et al.  Comparison of adsorption models in reservoir simulation of enhanced coalbed methane recovery and CO2 sequestration in coal , 2009 .

[29]  Stephen C. Ruppel,et al.  Spectrum of pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores , 2012 .