Spe 167753 Pa

J167753 DOI: 10.
2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15
Stage:
Page: 142
Total Pages: 13
Understanding Shale Gas Flow Behavior

Using Numerical Simulation
Hao Sun, Adwait Chawathe
, Hussein Hoteit, Xundan Shi, and Lin Li, Chevron Energy Technology Company
Summary
Shale gas has changed the energy equation around the world, and
its impact has been especially profound in the United States. It is
now generally agreed that the fabric of shale systems comprises
primarily organic matter, inorganic material, and natural fractures.
However, the underlying flow mechanisms through these multiporosity and multipermeability systems are poorly understood.
For instance, debate still exists about the predominant transport
mechanism (diffusion, convection, and desorption), as well as the
flow interactions between organic matter, inorganic matter, and
fractures. Furthermore, balancing the computational burden of
precisely modeling the gas transport through the pores vs. running
full reservoir scale simulation is also contested. To that end, commercial reservoir simulators are developing new shale gas
options, but some, for expediency, rely on simplification of existing data structures and/or flow mechanisms.
We present here the development of a comprehensive multimechanistic (desorption, diffusion, and convection), multiporosity
(organic materials, inorganic materials, and fractures), and multipermeability model that uses experimentally determined shale organic and inorganic material properties to predict shale gas
reservoir performance. Our multimechanistic model takes into
account gas transport caused by both pressure driven convection
and concentration driven diffusion. The model accounts for all
the important processes occurring in shale systems, including
desorption of multicomponent gas from the organics surface,
multimechanistic organic/inorganic material mass transfer, multimechanistic inorganic material/fracture network mass transfer,
and production from a hydraulically fractured wellbore.
Our results show that a dual porosity, dual permeability
(DPDP) model with Knudsen diffusion is generally adequate to
model shale gas reservoir production. Adsorption can make significant contributions to original gas in place, but is not important
to gas production because of adsorption equilibrium. By comparing triple porosity, dual permeability; DPDP; and single porosity,
single permeability formulations under similar conditions, we
show that Knudsen diffusion is a key mechanism and should not
be ignored under low matrix pressure (Pematrix ) cases, whereas
molecular diffusion is negligible in shale dry gas production. We
also guide the design of fractures by analyzing flow rate limiting
steps. This work provides a basis for long term shale gas production analysis and also helps define value adding laboratory
measurements.
Introduction
Shale gas refers to natural gas that is trapped within fine grained
sedimentary rocks called shale or mudstone that can be rich
source rocks for oil and natural gas. Over the past decades, technological advances such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have allowed access to large volumes of shale gas that
were previously uneconomic. The shale gas revolution has
rejuvenated the natural gas industry in the US and the global
energy markets. In 2013, the Energy Information Administration
C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V
This paper (SPE 167753) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/EAGE European
Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 2527 February
2014, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 7 October 2013.
Revised manuscript received for review 9 August 2014. Paper peer approved 21 August
2014.
(EIA) estimated approximately 7,300 Tcf of shale gas resources

and 345 billion bbl of shale oil resources in 137 shale formations
in 41 countries that are technically recoverable (EIA 2013). Globally, 32% of the total estimated natural gas resources are in shale
formations, whereas 10% of estimated oil resources are in shale
or tight formations (EIA 2013). The US alone has 665 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources (EIA 2013), which can
supply more than 30 years of US gas demand.
Shale reservoirs have distinctive features compared with traditional reservoirs. Shale gas reservoirs form within the organic rich
source rock but with much smaller pore sizesand thus lower permeabilityand without fluid migration. Furthermore, the low permeability and adsorption on the shale retard the migration of gas
to a more permeable reservoir. The shale reservoir is both the
source rock and the seal. Dominant pore diameters of most shale
reservoirs are smaller than 2 nm instead of 1 to 100 mm pores of
conventional sandstone and carbonate reservoirs (Swami et al.
2012). The permeability of conventional reservoirs is in the 10 to
10,000 md range; shale is much tighter. For the same shale sample, different test methods may give very different permeability
values, or data from different laboratories can be very different.
Diffusion can enhance the gas transport through the nanopores of
a shale gas reservoir. On the basis of laboratory observations, the
gas transport speed in a 10 nm capillary is comparable with that in
a 100 nm capillary because of the increased gas diffusion through
the smaller sized capillary space (Roy et al. 2003). The mean free
path of the methane molecule is even smaller than the nanometerscale pore radius. Gas molecules bump along the nanopores during
transport (Albo et al. 2006). This gas transport enhancement is
defined as Knudsen diffusion and cannot be modeled by the conventional constant permeability convection model. Despite this,
shale yields a low ultimate recovery (less than 20%) even after
multistage fracturing (Dahaghi and Mohaghegh 2011).
Because of the limited understanding of the nanopores and the
intrinsic production mechanisms in shale, multiphase flow
through shale reservoirsthrough the complex and multiscale
pathways ranging from nanopores and micrometer scale pores to
millimeter scale apertures of fractures (Olson et al. 2009; Anders
et al. 2014)cannot be modeled comprehensively in existing
commercial simulators. The current reservoir simulators, which
are primarily modeled after conventional reservoir transport
mechanisms, are limited in their ability to generate robust shale
gas production forecasts. The current commercial simulators that
we are aware of lack explicit modeling of the shale pore structure
(organics, inorganics, and fractures) and the underlying multimechanistic flow mechanisms. Some may have many shale gas specific optionssuch as explicit logarithmically spaced local grid
refinement dual permeability modeling of hydraulic fractures
along the horizontal well, microseismic data input, geomechanical
coupling, or gas/gas molecular/Knudsen diffusion for matrix and
matrix subdivision (Rubin 2010)but may lack a triple porosity,
dual permeability modeling option (CMG 2010). A model using
desorption and gas/gas molecular diffusion in the dual porosity
model was commercially implemented in EMpower software in
2011 (Leahy-Dios et al. 2011). However, this model lacks matrix
Knudsen diffusion. Still another model has gas/liquid and gas/gas
molecular diffusion, fracture/matrix/vug triple porosity option,
and a fracture matrix diffusion, but lacks a matrix gas Knudsen
diffusion term (Schlumberger 2010).
Laboratories also need guidance on value adding shale properties
that need to be measured (diffusivity or permeability; separating
142
February 2015 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 19:27 I Path: S:/3B2/J###/Vol00000/140070/APPFile/SA-J###140070
J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15
Inorganic material
10 m
HFW
det
HV
spot mag
WD
ETD 15.0 kv 5.0 12 000 x 24.9 m 10.0 mm
Stage:
Page: 143
Total Pages: 13
Organic material
500 nm
10 m
Bureau of Economic Geology
HFW
det
HV spot mag
WD
TLD 10.0 kv 3.0 150 000 x 1.99 m 5.4 mm
500 nm
Bureau of Economic Geology
Fig. 1(a) Scanning electron microscope photomicrograph of a fine grained mudrock; (b) comparison of scale of porosity
observed in the organic matter of Silurian gas shale (eastern Europe) rock. The scale bar for the mudrock is 10 lm and 500 nm for
the organic matter (inset image), representing a difference in scale of two orders of magnitude. Numbers in blue circles help relate
Figs. 1, 2, and 3 (photograph courtesy of Douglas McCarty, Chevron Energy Technology Company).
properties of organics from those of inorganics, such as organic

porosity or inorganic porosity, organic diffusivity, inorganic permeability or inorganic diffusivity). Reservoir engineers also need
to understand the use of laboratory measured properties correctly
for reservoir simulation to generate better predictions. Currently,
most research is focused on pore scale shale gas molecular simulation by use of the lattice Boltzmann method (Akkutlu and Fathi
2011, 2012), core scale permeability/diffusivity measurement
(Cui et al. 2009), apparent permeability function derivation, and
the implementation of apparent permeability function to the reservoir simulator (Javadpour et al. 2007; Javadpour 2009). A systematic work flow from laboratory measurement to reservoir scale
simulation has not been established to truly understand shale gas
production mechanisms (Mirzaei and Cipolla 2012).
We have performed a systematic study on shale gas transport
mechanisms by use of laboratory derived measurements as well
as reservoir simulation. Gas transport kinetics were measured
experimentally in our laboratory by use of both gravimetric and
volumetric methods. The gravimetric method consists of measuring the weight gain or loss by a sample under an equilibrium
pressure and temperature. The intelligent gravimetric analyzer
equipment involves continuously monitoring and analyzing the
weight data after a controlled change in gas pressure. The temperature range is 70300 F, and pressure can be up to 6,000 psi. This
real time analysis both determines the kinetic parameters and predicts the exact point of equilibrium uptake. The equilibrium points
are collected and plotted as an isotherm, whereas the kinetics data
can be extracted from the weight vs. time data between pressure
steps. The volumetric apparatus was built in-house and consists of
two volume chambers, pressure sensors, valves, and a vacuum
system. The volumes of both cells need to be carefully measured
before operating the unit. Each measurement of the total quantity
of gas admitted into the system and of the amount of gas remaining in the gas phase at the adsorption equilibrium are determined
by recording pressure and temperature of both cells. The kinetic
analysis for both gravimetric and volumetric methods is the same.
On the basis of the mass transfer characteristics of shale samples,
a dual porosity model was developed to analyze the gas uptake or
release of dynamic data and to obtain mass transfer parameters in
each step.
According to our internal laboratory results, effective diffusivity, which lumps both convection and diffusion, depends on shale
particle sample size. If the shale particle sample size is small
enough, the characteristic dimension of inorganic material is comparable with that of organic material. Therefore, the effective diffusivity measured in the laboratory mostly represents organic
material properties. On the other hand, the effective diffusivity of
a larger particle depends on mass transfer properties of both organic and inorganic materials of the shale sample. Analyzing the
data collected in our internal laboratories, we concluded that the
effect of particle size on the effective diffusivity measured in the
laboratory could not be matched by a single porosity (matrix
only) model but required a dual porosity (organic and inorganic

materials) model. This important observation was also supported
by previous coal literature, in which a bidisperse (two pore) model
was required to match the experimental data of some coal types
(Clarkson and Bustin 1999). Therefore, we concluded that it is
necessary to separately model slow gas transport in the organics
and relatively quick gas transport in inorganic material. However,
is this conclusion from the laboratory study still valid at the reservoir scale? Do we still need to model gas transport in organic material separately from that in inorganic material (Hudson et al.
2012)? Is the gas transport in organic material still the limiting
gas production at the reservoir scale? How important is the diffusion mechanism compared with the convection inside both organic and inorganic material? Which diffusionmolecular,
Knudsen, or bothshould be implemented in a shale gas reservoir simulator?
To answer all these key questions, we have built a new simulator that explicitly captures all our current understanding of the
shale pore structure and the gas/water flow mechanisms through
organic material, inorganic material, and the fracture networks of
shale reservoirs. Relying on this tool with guidance from laboratory observations, we improved our understanding of multiphase
gas and water transport through shale reservoirs. This simulator
provides a basis for long term shale gas production analysis and
helps define value adding laboratory measurements.
Shale Gas Reservoir Structure and
Flow Mechanism Model Development
Fig. 1a shows the scanning electron microscope photomicrograph
of a fine grained mudrock; Fig. 1b shows the comparison of scale
of porosity observed in the organic matter in a Silurian gas shale
(eastern Europe) rock. The scale bar for the mudrock is 10 mm
and 500 nm for the organic matter (inset image), representing a
difference in scale of two orders of magnitude. Tiny organic material (including kerogen and bitumen) is scattered through predominantly inorganic material in shale. This is the opposite of
traditional coal structures, in which tiny inorganic material is embedded through organic material (Kang et al. 2010). The dark
gray region is organic material (Fig. 1b). Organic pores are narrowly distributed in the nanometer scale and appear black because
of the light reflection. Gas, such as methane (CH4) or ethane, is
adsorbed inside these pores within the organic material. Light
gray regions are inorganic material (Fig. 1b). Inorganic pores
have a wide pore size distribution from nanometer (nm) to micrometer (mm). According to external, and our internal, laboratory
measurements, shale samples have a narrow pore size distribution
of approximately 2 nm, indicating that nanopores in both organic
and inorganic regions dominate the shale gas reservoir pore structure. Therefore, understanding shale gas mass transfer through
these nanopores is essential for understanding the overall shale
gas production mechanisms.
143
Stage:
Page: 144
Total Pages: 13
Disconnected micropore organic

(diffusion + desorption)
Organic material
(desorption + diffusion)
1
2
Inorganic material
(diffusion + convection)
Interporosity
transfer
term
Mesopore-to-micropore inorganic
(diffusion + convection)
3
Natural/hydraulic-fracture network
(convection)
Fig. 2Conceptual multimechanistic model for shale gas systems. This conceptual model can be easily extended for all
unconventional reservoirs, including shale oil systems, by
switching specific mechanisms on or off.
At the same time, the gas transport mechanism within shale is

a function of pore size. In the nanopores, CH4 molecules form a
dense, liquid like adsorption layer that covers internal surfaces of
the nanopore walls. The thickness of the adsorption layer is equal
to the CH4 molecule diameter (0.37 nm). If there is still pore
space besides the adsorption layer, there can be a phase transition
layer. The molecules in the phase transition layer are relatively
less dense and more mobile, but are still under the influence of the
wall. The thickness of the transition layer is approximately twice
the CH4 molecule diameter. Therefore, mass transport inside the
nanopores is approximately three CH4 molecule diameters thick
(1.11 nm) and can be under the influence of the wall. Knudsen
diffusion adequately describes this mass transport under wall
influence. The traditional no slip boundary condition in the continuum flow regime is therefore considered invalid (Clarkson
et al. 2011).
For mass transport of molecules in the larger pores (mm in diameter and larger), the influence of pore surface can be ignored.
The flow mechanisms are convection and molecular diffusion
because of pressure gradient and mole fraction gradient, respectively. For the molecular diffusion model, mass migration is
assumed to take place only between the fluid molecules in the
same phase. Molecular diffusion has been used to model gas/solid
diffusionally controlled reaction (Sun et al. 2012; Zygourakis
et al. 2013), and is an important mechanism for gas injection
enhanced oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs (Hoteit and
Firoozabadi 2009).
On the basis of our understanding of shale pore structures, the
conceptual triple porosity, dual permeability (TPDP) multimechanistic (desorption, diffusion, and convection) and multicomponent gas/water flow model for a shale gas reservoir is built (Fig.
2). This modeling concept is an extension of the methodology
developed at Pennsylvania State University for modeling coalbed
methane reservoirs (Chawathe 1995; Thararoop et al. 2012). To
summarize, we propose three interacting domains to describe
shale gas mass transport: organic nanopores, inorganic nanopores
to micropores, and the natural and hydraulic fracture system
shown in Fig. 2. On the basis of the discussion in the preceding
paragraph, we assume that Knudsen diffusion dominates the nanopores, which feed the inorganic pore system. Furthermore, it does
not make sense to model molecular diffusion for single component gas systems. As mentioned previously, the inorganic matrix
has a wide pore size distribution, from nanometers to millimeters.
Therefore, we anticipate Knudsen diffusion and convection transport to be dominant in this domain. The inorganic pores will then
act as a source for the fracture system, in which pure convective
transport will come into play. This results in a TP (organic nanopores, inorganic nanopores to micropores, and millimeter scale
Interporosity
transfer
term
Millimeter fractures
(convection)
Hydraulic fractures
Fig. 3Grid representation of the conceptual TPDP model
shown in Fig. 2, for reservoir simulation. In Grid No.1, because
the organic material is considered dispersed in the inorganic domain, no intrablock flux terms are assumed, whereas intrablock
flux terms exist in Grid Nos. 2 and 3, resulting in a TPDP model.
aperture fractures) and DP (organic-to-inorganic material and

inorganic material-to-fracture) system.
The TPDP system is modeled as three explicit grids to describe
gas transport in organic material, inorganic material, and the fracture system (Fig. 3). The induced hydraulic fractures are modeled
explicitly as high permeability fine grids, and dual permeability
includes the pressure dominated flow within the inorganic materials and flow within fracture grids. The organic material is embedded in the vast inorganic material. The organic material is
generally considered disconnected in the entire reservoir. Therefore, we do not consider flow within the organic material grids
(Grid No. 1). Inside the organic material, the shale gas concentration in the nanopores is in instantaneous equilibrium with that
adsorbed on the solid surface, which is described by the multicomponent gas Langmuir isotherm. The gas desorption rate at the solid
surface is much faster compared with the gas mass transfer rate
through the shale porous media. During gas production, the
adsorbed gas is desorbed to the organic nanopores driven by the
pressure drop caused by the production at the well. The mean free
path of a free gas molecule is comparable with or larger than the
nanopore diameter. The free gas molecules bump along the nanopore surface and flow outside into vast inorganic material because
of the gas density gradient during gas production. This transport
mechanism is well described by Knudsen diffusion, which is different from the pressure gradient driven convection. The latter
mechanism is not suitable to describe the slip flow in the nanopore
structures and hence is ignored in Grid No. 1. In the vast inorganic
material, both Knudsen diffusion and conventional convection
mechanisms are modeled in Grid No. 2 during gas production
because of the wide pore size distribution from nanometer to micrometer scales. In natural and hydraulic fractures (Grid No. 3), pure
convection is assumed to be the predominant flow mechanism.
In summary, there are two key assumptions used in our model.
The first assumption is that during gas production, gas is first
produced from a natural and hydraulic fracture network driven by
convection. Then, gas is released from inorganic material to the
fracture network because of density gradient triggered diffusion
and pressure gradient triggered convection. At last, gas is fed
from organic material into inorganic material because of density
144

gradient triggered diffusion. The whole transport process appears

to occur in a serial mode, and the gas production rate depends on
the total resistance for mass transfer, which is the sum of resistance of each component involved. The step with largest resistance
may become the rate limiting step (in shale gas, this is the travel
through inorganic matter, as will be shown later). Because organic
material amount is relatively small, sparse organic material is
more likely to directly connect with vast inorganic material
instead of fracture networks. Given this, other conceptual modelssuch as gas transport in parallel in both organic and inorganic material, ending in the fracture network (Kang et al.
2010)are not considered in our study.
The second assumption is that there is no water transport in organic material. Because of the nanopore size of the organic material, gas, not liquids, is assumed to be the only flowing fluid.
Water transport in inorganic material and fracture networks is
modeled as convective flow under pressure gradient only. Gas diffusion through water is neglected in this study. The reason is that
CH4 has small solubility in water (0.007 g/kg of water) at standard
conditions. The diffusivity of CH4 in water is four orders of magnitude lower than that in gas. Water diffusivity in organic material
is also slower than CH4 diffusivity in organic material.
Shale Gas Reservoir Simulation
A common approach in the literature is to lump Knudsen diffusion with convection in the form of the Klinkenberg correction
factor for permeability for modeling gas transport in the tight matrix (Ertekin et al. 1986; Clarkson et al. 2012). That is,

ba
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ka k1 1
pg
p g c g l g Dg
Sg pg cg lg Dg
(for single phase flow), ba
ak1
akrg k1
(for multiphase flow), ka is the apparent gas permeability, ba is the
gas slippage factor, k1 is the liquid equivalent permeability, pg is
the mean gas pressure, Dg is the diffusivity, cg is the gas compressibility, lg is the gas viscosity, a is the unit conversion factor, Sg is
the gas saturation, and krg is the gas relative permeability.
It is apparent that the Klinkenberg correction factor still needs
the value of diffusivity and is a lumped function of diffusivity,
pressure, gas composition, pore structure, and temperature. The
implementation of this approach in the reservoir simulator creates
huge efforts. In our model, we implement convection and diffusion terms separately. The permeability and diffusivity terms are
measured directly from laboratory and scaled up for reservoir
scale simulation. We also implemented the extended Langmuir
isotherm for multicomponent gas adsorption in the organic material gas mass transport equation (Hall et al. 1994).
The multimechanistic, multicomponent equations for gas and
water transport in the organic material, inorganic material, and
fracture are as follows.
Inorganic material water mass transport:

@/I bw SwI
kr;wI bw
kr;wI bw
rUwI rI kI
DUwIF :
r kI
@t
lw
lw
where ba
2
Fracture water mass transport:

@/F bw SwF
kr;wF bw
rUwF
r kF
@t
lw
kr;wI bw
DUwFI : 3
qww rI kI
lw
Organic material gas mass transport (gas component i):
@qrock xi @/O bg SgO yO;i
rO Sg DgO DCgOI;i : . . . . . . . 4
@t
@t
Stage:
Page: 145
Total Pages: 13
Inorganic material gas transport (gas component i):

@/I bg SgI yI;i
yI;i kr;gI bg
rUgI Sg DgI rCgI;i
r kI
@t
lg
rO Sg DgO DCgIO;i
rI kI
yI;i kr;gI bg
DUgIF
lg
Sg DgI DCgIF;i : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fracture gas transport (gas component i):
@/F bg SgF yF;i
r
@t
yF;i kr;gF bg
rUgF
kF
lg
rI kI
!
yF;i qgw
yI;i kr;gI bg
DUgFI
lg
Sg DgI DCgFI;i : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
In Eqs. 2 through 6, /O ,/I , and /F denote the porosity of organic material, inorganic material, and fractures, respectively;
SgO ,SgI , and SgF refer to the gas phase saturation of organic material,
inorganic material, and fractures, respectively; yO;i yI;i , andyF;i are
the mole fraction of component i in the gas phase of organic material, inorganic material, and fractures, respectively; SwI and SwF refer
to the water phase saturation of inorganic material and fractures,
respectively; kr;wI and kr;wF refer to the water phase relative permeability of inorganic material and fractures, respectively; kr;gI and
kr;gF refer to the gas phase relative permeability of inorganic material and fractures, respectively; UwI and UwF are water phase potential of inorganic material and fractures, respectively; UgI and UgF
are gas phase potential of inorganic material and fractures, respectively; kI and kF are inorganic material and fracture permeability
(md), respectively; lw and lg are water and gas phase viscosity
(cp), respectively; rO andrI are shape factors (ft2) of organic and
inorganic material, respectively; and qww and qgw are water and gas
well production rate (lbm-mol/ft3/D), respectively. DgO and DgI are
gas diffusivity in organic and inorganic material (ft2/D), respectively; bw and bg are water and gas molar density (lbm-mol/ft3),
respectively; CgO;i , CgI;i , and CgF;i are gas phase component i concentration (lbm-mol/ft3) in organic and inorganic material and fractures, respectively; qrock is rock density (lbm/ft3); and xi is gas
phase component i adsorption amount (lb-mol/lb rock).
These equations are solved simultaneously to describe the
multiphase (multicomponent gas and water), multimechanistic
flow in shale systems. Fig. 4 shows a simplified flow chart of our
fully implicit, 3D, multicomponent gas, multiphase (gas and
water), multimechanistic (desorption, convection, and diffusion)
code.
The algorithm is composed of six parts:
The Model Definition part defines phases and components in
phases and initializes all variables.
The Property Computation part computes properties such as
phase mobility, transmissibility, well index, and mass of
each component present at each timestep.
The Accumulation, Flux, and Well part linearizes accumulation, flux, and well terms in mass balance equations of every
component.
The Matrix Assembler part assembles and copies the reservoir and well equation derivatives of primary variables into
corresponding parts in linear solver data structure.
The Linear Solver part solves the linear system to update the
primary variables.
The Nonlinear Updater part updates all the variables after
linear solver solution. Then, if the equation residuals and
primary variables converge, it moves to the Property Computation part for the new timestep, according to the dynamic
timestep calculator. Otherwise, it cycles back to the Property
Computation part until it converges at the current timestep.
145
Model Definition
Next Timestep
k=k+1
n=n+1
Property Computation
Accum, Flux, Well
Matrix Assembler
Linear Solver
Nonlinear Updater
N
Converged ?
Y
Fig. 4Fully implicit, 3D, multicomponent gas, multiphase (gas
and water), multimechanistic (desorption, convection, and diffusion), multidomain simulator flow chart.
Results and Discussions

Model Setup. We consider a hypothetical shale reservoir in this
paper. The depth of the reservoir is nominally assumed at 2,000
ft. The dimension of the reservoir is 1,0001,000100 ft. The
grid size is 30105 in the x-, y-, and z-direction, respectively.
Water is assumed to be at the irreducible saturation (Swir ) in the
organic/inorganic material and natural fractures. Slickwater is distributed with the constant nonequilibrium water saturation
(Sw > Swir ) in the hydraulic fracture grids to mimic fracture fluids
injection. The conceptual model setup includes a horizontal well
with five hydraulic fractures. We applied a logarithmically spaced
global grid refinement (tartan grid) along the hydraulic fractures
to capture the rapid gas release (Fig. 5). By comparing three, five,
and seven level grid refinement along the fractures, we learned
that five level grid refinement is sufficient to capture the rapid gas
release along the fractures, which is also reported elsewhere
(Rubin 2010). The width of the hydraulic fracture grid is 2 ft to
speed up the convergence rate. The fracture conductivity of the 2
ft wide gridblock is conserved with an effective permeability
WHF
) (Rubin 2010). For instance, a 2 ft wide fracture
(keff kHFwgrid
grid with 2 md permeability has the same fracture conductivity as
a 0.002 ft wide fracture with 2,000 md permeability. The kv =kh ratio is 0.1 in the organic and the inorganic grids.
Benchmarking. We first benchmarked our basic model developed here with our internal CHEARSTM simulator, under constant
gas flow rate and bottomhole pressure control conditions.
Throughout this work, the model is referred to as the research
model. The methane (CH4), nitrogen (N2), and water daily production rates from our research simulator matched exactly with
those from the internal simulator (CHEARS simulator) in both
single porosity, single permeability (SPSP) and dual porosity,
dual permeability (DPDP) cases (Fig. 6). We also benchmarked
our research simulator with the CMG simulator (CMG 2010) for
the gas adsorption SPSP case (Fig. 6). In all cases, the results
from these three simulators match within 0.2% for cumulative
gas/water production after 100 years.
Model Comparisons (SPSP vs. DPDP vs. TPDP) and
Sensitivity Analysis. To systematically study the effects of reservoir parameters and compare the predictions from the TPDP
Stage:
Page: 146
Total Pages: 13
model with the existing DPDP and SPSP models, we used the porosity, desorption, diffusivity, and permeability data of a real
shale measured in our internal laboratory and scaled up for reservoir simulation inputs (Table 1). Laboratory measured organic
diffusivity is scaled up for reservoir simulation usage. Because organic material cluster size LO laboratory is on mm scale, the laboratory measured organic diffusivity DgO laboratory does not depend
on the organic matter size (mm). The stretching of the feet scale
reservoir simulator organic matter grid size LO reservoir forced us
to adjust the organic diffusivity value DgO reservoir to maintain the
same characteristic flow time measured in the laboratory (Eq. 7).

torganics
L2O
DgO
laboratory
L2O
DgO

: . . . . . . . . . 7
reservoir
Fig. 7 shows the impact of diffusion in organics in the TPDP

model. In addition to an experimental design, we also studied the
behavior of these systems at extreme conditions. We compared
the cumulative CH4 production at the low end case (all the parameters are set at their lowest values), at the middle value case (all
the parameters are set at their middle values), and at the high end
case (all the parameters are set at their highest values).
During 30 years of gas production, the cumulative CH4 production with organic diffusion and without organic diffusion for
the low end case does not show a major difference. The reason is
that gas resides in organic material either as free or as adsorbed
gas and occupies only 6 wt% of original gas in place (OGIP) in
the reservoir. Therefore, the contribution of the gas production
from the organic material is negligible compared with other parts
in the reservoir, such as inorganic material. In contrast, the cumulative CH4 production with organic diffusion far exceeds that
without organic diffusion at both middle value and high end cases,
which is because gas in organic material occupies 25 and 58 wt%
of OGIP, respectively, at middle value and high end cases. Therefore, the amount of gas released from organic material can be
significant.
Because the amount of gas released from organic material can
be significant, how quickly the gas is released from organic material is a key question. The gas in the organic material is produced
slower than that in the inorganic material, as demonstrated in the
laboratory scale measurements. Therefore, we had concluded that
we need to model the mass transport inside organic material separately. The TPDP approach is one such approach. Fig. 8 shows
the comparisons among SPSP, DPDP, and TPDP models. Interestingly, the DPDP model yields results comparable with those of
the TPDP model for all low end, middle value, and high end
cases. However, the SPSP model cannot predict the shale reservoir production in all cases. This indicates that the speed of gas
release from organic material is rapid enough to be represented by
the DPDP model. Why is this? Why do the reservoir scale results
differ from intuition and laboratory scale measurements? The
combination of the OGIP distribution for real shale (Fig. 9) and
the TPDP models characteristic flow time for real shale (Table
2) can answer the question. The characteristic flow time is estimated as 1 mol of gas transferring through the different pore systems. As seen from Fig. 9, in the middle case, we assume 1 wt%
of OGIP is free CH4 in organic material, 5 wt% of OGIP is
adsorbed CH4 in organic material, 83 wt% of OGIP is free CH4 in
inorganic material, and the rest (or 11 wt% of OGIP) is free CH4
in fractures. In general, the majority of gas is stored in organic or
inorganic material depending on the reservoir maturity. In terms
of the characteristic time, for 1 mol of gas traveling through the
organic material, inorganic material, natural fracture, and hydraulic fracture regions, tinorganics is significantly the longest. This
result is consistent for all other cases, such as the high end and
low end cases. Although by intuition and core scale measurement,
the much slower diffusion through the organic materials hinders
the whole gas flow process, the simulation shows that the distance
for 1 mol of gas to travel in the organic material region (we
assume organic material form 1 mm clusters and are embedded
through the reservoir) is far shorter compared with the distance
146

Stage:
Water Saturation
Page: 147
Total Pages: 13
Water Saturation
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X
Y
2,000
200
2,020
2,060
400
Y
Z (depth)
2,040
600
2,080
800
2,100
0
1,000
200
800
400
Y 600
600
400 X
1,000
200
200
800
200
400
600
800
1,000 1,200
1,000 0
(a)
(b)
Water Saturation
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
2,000
Z (depth)
2,020
2,040
2,060
2,080
2,100
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
(c)
Fig. 5(a) Logarithmically spaced global grid refinement (LS-GR) grids for a horizontal well with multiple hydraulic fractures; (b)
xy layer; and (c) yz layer. Note that the horizontal well grid is too fine to display properly at this scale, so the well has been superimposed for convenience.
that the gas molecules travel in the inorganic material. Because

gas flow through the previously mentioned four regions appears to
be in serial, the slowest step (tinorganics ) determines the whole production process and can become the rate limiting step. In other
words, it is not the rate of gas release but the actual transport of a
gas molecule through the organic material to the wellbore in a serial mode that determines the gas production. The DPDP model
with diffusion should therefore be sufficient to model shale gas
production instead of a more complicated TPDP model, when the
organic material size is similar to that assumed for real shale (1 mm
clusters). This important conclusion is also supported by a previous publication in which the travel time in organic matter is small
compared with inorganic matter because of mm cluster size,
although we used different approaches (Clarkson et al. 2012).
Once we had established that a DPDP model with diffusion is
adequate, we also performed an experimental design study to
understand the effects of different parameters on the recovery profile by use of the DPDP model. Fig. 10 shows the Pareto chart of
standardized effects for cumulative CH4 production. As expected,
the natural fracture permeability leads the list as the most impor-
tant parameter. Matrix diffusion/convection ratio and matrix permeability follow in the list because these two parameters
determine the diffusivity and permeability in the inorganic material. By itself, the matrix diffusion/convection ratio result is counterintuitive. The positive absolute value of the effect estimate
implies that as this parameter increases, so does gas production.
Matrix diffusion/convection ratio can increase with reduction in
inorganic permeability, but that interpretation would be incorrect.
Thus, the matrix diffusion/convection ratio should always be considered with matrix permeability, which is also significant and has
a positive effect estimate. These three parameters appear as statistically significant (p 0.05) and determine the whole gas production process. Matrix porosity, CH4 adsorption amount, and natural
fracture porosity are relatively unimportant within the parameter
ranges that we studied.
Figs. 11a and 11b show the desorption effects for real shale
under both high (1,000 psi) and low (250 psi) bottomhole pressure. The Langmuir pressure of CH4-shale is 341 psi, which
means half of the amount of adsorbed CH4 is desorbed when the
reservoir pressure is dropped to less than 341 psi. When the
147
H2O (CHEARSTM simulator) 8

CH4 (research simulator)
80
N2 (research simulator)
H2O (research simulator)
6
5
60
4
40
3
2
20
10
CH4 (CHEARSTM simulator)
Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D)
Water Production Rate (stock tank m3/d)
N2 (CHEARSTM simulator)
100
Total Pages: 13
120
10
CH4 (CHEARSTM simulator)
Page: 148
N2 (CHEARSTM simulator)
100
H2O (CHEARSTM simulator) 8

80
20
40
60
Time (years)
80
60
6
5
4
40
3
2
20
1
0
0
120
Stage:
0
100
0
0
20
80
40
60
Time (years)
(a)
0
100
(b)
CH4 (CMG simulator)
N2 (CMG simulator)
100
H2O (CMG simulator)

80
8
7
6
5
60
4
40
3
2
20
1
0
0
20
40
60
Time (years)
80
10
120
0
100
(c)
Fig. 6(a) Benchmarking with internal simulator at constant gas flow rate and bottomhole pressure control condition for single
porosity, single permeability (SPSP) case; (b) dual porosity, dual permeability (DPDP) case; and (c) benchmarking with CMG simulator (CMG 2010) for gas adsorption SPSP case. In all cases, the results from these three simulators match within 0.2% for cumulative gas/water production after 100 years.
adsorbed gas increases from 5 to 33 wt% of the total gas, OGIP

increases by 45% but gas production increases by 913% only,
which is similar to previous results (Cipolla et al. 2010). It
appears that when combined with diffusion and convection,
adsorption may contribute significant OGIP, but has a relatively
small contribution to production, and is consistent with the previous rate limiting characteristic time analysis.
Pe
UL
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Dg
In Eq. 8, the Peclet number Pe can be used to gauge whether

diffusion or convection dominates, and U is bulk velocity, L is the
characteristic length, and Dg is diffusivity. Fig. 12a shows the

effects of molecular diffusion and Knudsen diffusion for real
shale in the high matrix permeability case (0.1 md) (Pematrix
2,000, convection dominates) by use of the SPSP model; Fig. 12b
shows a low matrix permeability case (5105 md) (Pematrix 1,
diffusion dominates) by use of the DPDP model. As expected, the
diffusion effect from molecular diffusion and Knudsen diffusion
is negligible compared with convection in the high permeability
case. Knudsen diffusion yields 23% more gas production in the
low permeability case after 10 years of production compared with
the convection only case. The density gradient, which is the driving mechanism for Knudsen diffusion, is adequate to describe
flow of gas in low permeability shale gas reservoirs. However,
Parameter
Maximum N2 desorption amount (lb-mol/lb rock)
Maximum CH4 desorption amount (lb-mol/lb rock)
Langmuir isotherm relation for N 2 and CH4 (1/psi)
Organic material porosity (O)
2
*Upscaled organic material diffusivity (DgO) (m /s)
Inorganic material permeability (kI) (md)
2
Inorganic material diffusivity (DgI) (m /s)
Natural fracture porosity (NF)
Natural fracture permeability (kNF) (md)
*
V a lue s
0.8665105
1.097105
1.03103
1103
1104
5107
51010
1103
5105
R a nge
0.8665104
1.097104
2.932103
1101
1102
5105
5108
1102
5102
Organic material diffusivity is scaled up from laboratory measurement for reservoir simulation input.
Table 1Reservoir simulation parameters.

148

Stage:
104
Page: 149
Total Pages: 13
105
Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
TPDP with Organics Diffusion
TPDP without Organics Diffusion
0.5
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
2
0
0
30
10
15
Time (years)
(a)
20
25
30
(b)
12
105
10

0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
(c)
Fig. 7Effects of organics diffusion in TPDP model (a) at low end case, (b) at middle value case, and (c) at high end case. Note
that after Fig. 6, N2 is no longer shown in the figures.
molecular diffusion is negligible in this case because the mechanism is driven by mole fraction gradient. Therefore, the common
belief that diffusion is unimportant in shale reservoir production
may not be valid. This result also supports the observations in
Fig. 10. High pressure, low diffusivity, and high permeability reservoir conditions can lead to convection domination results similar to those in Fig. 12a, and opposite reservoir conditions can lead
to diffusion domination results similar to those in Fig. 12b.
Fracture Design. Transient pressure analysis is useful to guide
hydraulic fracture design (Cinco-Ley et al. 1978; Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego-V. 1981; Chaudhary 2011). Table 3 shows the dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCD ) analysis. FCD analysis is useful to guide the fracture design instead of the use of fracture
conductivity (kHF WHF ) alone because FCD combines the matrix
properties with the fracture properties and is independent of the
porosity and the total compressibility of the matrix and the fracture. After determining that multiphase flow and diffusion can
be important for gas transport, we modified FCD from the traditional form (Cinco-Ley et al. 1978; Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-V.
1981),
FCD
kHF WHF
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
kM xHF
to
kHF kr;gHF WHF

FCD
; . . . . . . . . . . 10
Pematrix DgM lg
xHF
kM kr;gM
P PBHP
to capture multiphase flow and contribution of diffusion, where
DgM is gas diffusivity in matrix (ft2/D), P is average reservoir
pressure (psi), and PBHP is well bottomhole flowing pressure (psi).
For high FCD , pressure drop is negligible in high conductivity
fractures. As FCD decreases, it is important to overcome the flow
restrictions created by the pressure drop in fractures. Low FCD
means low fracture permeability, long fracture length, high matrix
permeability, or all of these. As the fracture permeability
approaches the matrix permeability, the pressure drop distribution
corresponds to that for radial flow (Cinco-Ley et al. 1978; CincoLey and Samaniego-V. 1981).
Table 3 shows that for the base case, for a typical fracture half
length (xHF 250 ft), FCD is 1.78. Under this condition, increasing the length of the fracture farther may not be as helpful, and
the use of more/better proppant is required. If the situation is misjudged and the effort is spent in an even longer fracture (fracture
half length of 1.8 * xHF 450 ft), the FCD will actually drop to
0.98, thus hampering production. If the fracture length is
149
104
Stage:
Page: 150
Total Pages: 13
105
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
TPDP with Inorganics Diffusion
DPDP with Matrix Diffusion
SPSP with Diffusion
1.5
1
3
SPSP with Diffusion
0.5
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
(a)
12
25
30
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
(b)
105
10
8
SPSP with Diffusion
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
(c)
Fig. 8The comparisons among SPSP model, DPDP model, and TPDP model (a) at low end case, (b) at middle value case, and (c)
at high end case. The TPDP model with inorganics diffusion data is coincident with the DPDP model with matrix diffusion data.
11 wt% 1 wt% 5 wt%
Free CH4 in organics

Adsorbed CH4 in organics
Free CH4 in inorganics
83 wt%
Free CH4 in fracture

Fig. 9OGIP distribution for real shale.
comparable with the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) dimension, physically the flow spends an equal amount of time traveling
through the fractures and the matrix. It is apparent that fractures
lose their acceleration advantage. Therefore, the right approach in
this case is to create wider fractures (100 kHF WHF 4 md ft) by

use of more proppant. For such a fracture, FCD increases significantly to 178. If the fracture length is comparable with the SRV
dimension, the physical meaning is that flow moves 178 times
faster through fractures than as in the matrix. In this case, it is
apparent that fractures accelerate the gas production significantly
because the radius of influence for an infinite fracture conductivity (FCD > 200) is approximately 4 xHF (Cinco-Ley et al. 1978)
and covers the whole reservoir. However, for infinite fracture conductivity (FCD > 200) (200 kHF WHF 8 md ft), more/better
proppants are of limited value (Table 3). Fig. 13 shows CH4 cumulative gas production under different fracture design cases,
which is consistent with our analysis. Extending fracture length
does not help if FCD is low. Therefore, the gas production in the
base case overlaps with that in 1.8 * xHF. Increasing fracture conductivity requires additional proppant, but the cost of additional
Table 2TPDP model characteristic flow time for real shale.

150

Stage:
Page: 151
Total Pages: 13
3.964
Natural Fracture Permeability
Matrix Diffusion/Convection Ratio
3.099
2.889
Matrix Permeability
Matrix Porosity
2.130
CH4-Adsorption Amount
0.477
p-value = 0.05 significance limit
Natural Fracture Porosity
0.160
0
2
3
Effect Estimate (absolute value)
Fig. 10Pareto chart of standardized effects for cumulative CH4 production in the DPDP model.
proppant may not be justified because of diminishing returns in production with time. Therefore, the gas production in 200 kHF WHF just
marginally exceeds that in 100 kHF WHF . In terms of the recommended fracture design, for FCD < 2, longer but thinner fracture
design is not efficient, and shorter but wider fractures are recommended. For infinite fracture conductivity (FCD > 200), more and
better proppants are of limited value.
Conclusions
We introduced a 3D triple porosity, dual permeability (TPDP)
multimechanistic (desorption, diffusion, and convection) and multicomponent gas/water flow research simulator. This new model
simultaneously and systematically models all known shale gas
flow mechanisms and domains (organic, inorganic, and fracture)
by use of real shale data from internal laboratory measurements to
guide reservoir simulation. In agreement with earlier literature
studies, our main conclusions are as follows.
1. Dual porosity, dual permeability (DPDP) with Knudsen diffusion is adequate to model shale gas reservoir production by comparing TPDP, DPDP, and single porosity, single permeability
105
12
105
10
5
4
3
2
CH4: adsorbed gas/total = 5 wt%
1
0
formulations for real shale data. Triple porosity or more complex quad porosity models may not be needed for data similar to
the real shale (where the organic shale is interspersed within
vast inorganic shale) considered in the paper.
2. The most appropriate way to model diffusion in shale reservoirs is
Knudsen diffusion. Molecular diffusion, which is modeled after
the mole fraction gradient, has negligible contribution and is not
appropriate for dry gas production. We showed that Knudsen diffusion is a key mechanism and yields 23% more gas production in
low permeability cases studied at 10 years (Pematrix 1, diffusion
dominates). As expected, both molecular diffusion and Knudsen
diffusion are negligible compared with convection in the high permeability cases studied (Pematrix 2,000, convection dominates).
High pressure, low diffusivity, and high permeability reservoir
conditions can lead to convection domination results, and the opposite reservoir conditions can lead to diffusion domination
results.
3. When the adsorbed gas increases from 5 to 33 wt% of the total
gas, the original gas in place (OGIP) increases by 45% but gas
production increases by only 913%. Adsorption can make a
10
15
Time (years)
(a)
20
25
4
30
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
(b)
Fig. 11Desorption impacts for real shale when (a) bottomhole pressure (1,000 psi) is greater than the CH4-shale Langmuir pressure (341 psi) and when (b) bottomhole pressure (250 psi) is less than the CH4-shale Langmuir pressure (341 psi).
151
105
5
4
3
2
CH4: without diffusion
CH4: with molecular diffusion
CH4: with knudsen diffusion
1
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
Stage:
Page: 152
Total Pages: 13
105
CH4: without diffusion

CH4: with molecular diffusion
CH4: with knudsen diffusion
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
(a)
(a)
Fig. 12The effects of molecular diffusion and Knudsen diffusion for real shale (a) at high permeability case (kM 5 0.1 md)
(Pematrix 5 2,000, convection dominates) by use of SPSP model and (b) at low permeability case (kM 5 531025 md) (Pematrix 5 1, diffusion dominates) by use of the DPDP model. (a) The line for methane (CH4) with molecular diffusion is coincident with the lines
for CH4 without diffusion and for CH4 with Knudsen diffusion; (b) the line for CH4 with molecular diffusion is coincident with the
line for CH4 without diffusion.
FCD
1.78
0.98
178
356
kHFWHF
0.04 mdft
0.04 mdft
4 mdft
8 mdft
Table 3Dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCD) analysis.
significant contribution to the OGIP, but might not be important to gas production until later field life because of adsorption
equilibrium. This is consistent with previous findings.
4. Extending fracture length does not help if fracture conductivity
is low. Increasing fracture conductivity requires additional proppant, but the cost of additional proppant may not be justified
because of diminishing returns in production with time.
5. This work provides a basis for long term shale gas production
analysis and helps define value adding laboratory measurements; for example, differentiating organic porosity from inorganic porosity is not necessary, but differentiating matrix
permeability from diffusivity is very important.
Nomenclature
ba gas slippage factor, psia
bg gas molar density, lbm-mol/ft3
bw water molar density, lbm-mol/ft3
cg coefficient of gas isothermal compressibility, 1/psi
CgF,i gas phase component i concentration in fractures, lbmmol/ft3
CgI,i gas phase component i concentration in inorganic material, lbm-mol/ft3
CgO,i gas phase component i concentration in organic material,
lbm-mol/ft3
Dg gas diffusivity, ft2/D
DgM gas diffusivity in matrix, ft2/D
DgO gas diffusivity in organic material, ft2/D
DgI gas diffusivity in inorganic material, ft2/D
FCD fracture conductivity, dimensionless
ka apparent gas permeability, md
kF fracture permeability, md
kI inorganic material permeability, md
krg gas relative permeability
kr,gF gas phase relative permeability of fractures
105
6
CH4 Cumulative Production (Mscf)
Base case (xHF = 250 ft)

1.8 * xHF
100 * kHFWHF
200 * kHFWHF
5
4
base case
1.8 * xHF
100 * kHF WHF

200 * kHF WHF
2
1
0
0
10
15
Time (years)
20
25
30
Fig. 13CH4 cumulative gas production under different fracture design cases. The line for 1.8 * xHF is coincident with the
line for the base case.
kr,gI
kr,wF
kr,wI
k1
pg
PBHP
qgw
qww
Sg
SgF
SgI
SgO
Sw
SwF
Swir
SwI
yF,i
gas phase relative permeability of inorganic material

water phase relative permeability of fractures
water phase relative permeability of inorganic material
liquid equivalent permeability, md
average reservoir pressure, psi
well bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
gas well production rate, lbm-mol/ft3/D
water well production rate, lbm-mol/ft3/D
gas saturation
gas phase saturation of fractures
gas phase saturation of inorganic material
gas phase saturation of organic material
water saturation
water phase saturation of fractures
irreducible water saturation
water phase saturation of inorganic material
mole fraction of component i in the gas phase of
fractures
152

yI,i mole fraction of component i in the gas phase of inorganic material

yO,i mole fraction of component i in the gas phase of organic
material
xHF fracture half length, ft
a unit conversion factor
lg gas phase viscosity, cp
lw water phase viscosity, cp
rF shape factor of fractures, ft-2
rI shape factor of inorganic material, ft-2
rO shape factor of organic material, ft-2
qrock rock density, lbm/ft3
/F porosity of fractures
/I porosity of inorganic material
/O porosity of organic material
UgF gas phase potential of fractures, psi
UgI gas phase potential of inorganic materials, psi
xi gas phase component i adsorption amount, lb-mol/lb
rock
Acknowledgments*
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Shale Gas Unit within the
Chevron Energy Technology Company for funding this work. We
also acknowledge the Chevron Energy Technology Company management for permission to publish this work. We also acknowledge
Douglas K. McCarty for generously providing the scanning electron microscope images. We also appreciate helpful discussions
with Baosheng Liang, Shengkai Duan, and Yih-Bor Chang during
the course of the project. We appreciate three anonymous
reviewers comments to improve the quality of the article.
References
Akkutlu, I.Y. and Fathi, E. 2011. Gas Transport in Shales with Local Kerogen Heterogeneities. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 October2 November.
SPE-146422-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146422-MS.
Akkutlu, I.Y. and Fathi, E. 2012. Multiscale Gas Transport in Shales With
Local Kerogen Heterogeneities. SPE J. 17 (4): 10021011. SPE146422-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146422-PA.
Albo, S.E., Broadbelt, L.J., and Snurr, R.Q. 2006. Multiscale Modeling of
Transport and Residence Times in Nanostructured Membranes. AIChE
J. 52 (11): 36793687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.10998.
Anders, M.H., Laubach, S.E., and Scholz, C.H. 2014. Microfractures: A
Review. J. Struct. Geol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.05.011 (in
press; posted 29 May 2014).
Chaudhary, A.S. 2011. Shale Oil Production Performance from a Stimulated Reservoir Volume. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 October2 November.
SPE-147596-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/147596-MS.
Chawathe, A. 1995. Development and Testing of a Dual-Porosity, DualPermeability Simulator to Study Multimechanistic Flow Through
Tight, Fractured Reservoirs. PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University (August 1995).
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F. 1981. Transient Pressure Analysis
for Fractured Wells. J Pet Technol 33 (9): 17491766. SPE-7490-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7490-PA.
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego V., F., and Dominguez A., N. 1978. Transient
Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical
Fracture. SPE J. 18 (4): 253264. SPE-6014-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/6014-PA.
Cipolla, C., Lolon, E.P., Erdle, J.C., et al. 2010. Reservoir Modeling in
Shale-Gas Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 13 (4): 638653. SPE125530-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125530-PA.
* Disclaimer: All information in this paper is provided as is for informational purposes only,
as related to our experience to understand shale gas production mechanisms through reservoir simulation. It is not intended, or should not be construed, to grant any license under
any patent or other intellectual property right of Chevron. It is not intended to be and shall
not be interpreted to be suggestions, advice or recommendations for the use of any product
or application of any process in a manner that infringes any patent or other intellectual property of a third party.
Stage:
Page: 153
Total Pages: 13
Clarkson, C.R., Nobakht, M., Kaviani, D., et al. 2012. Production Analysis
of Tight-Gas and Shale-Gas Reservoirs Using the Dynamic-Slippage
Concept. SPE J. 17 (1): 230242. SPE-144317-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/144317-PA.
Clarkson, C.R. and Bustin, R.M. 1999. The Effect of Pore Structure and
Gas Pressure Upon the Transport Properties of Coal: A Laboratory and
Modeling Study. 2. Adsorption Rate Modeling. Fuel 78 (11):
13451362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(99)00056-3.
Clarkson, C.R., Jensen, J.L., and Blasingame, T.A. 2011. Reservoir Engineering for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: What Do We Have to
Consider? Presented at SPE North American Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 1416 June. SPE145080-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/145080-MS.
CMG. 2010. GEM: Advanced Compositional and GHG Reservoir
Simulator, Version 2010 Users Guide. Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
CMG.
Cui, X., Bustin, A.M.M., and Bustin, R.M. 2009. Measurements of Gas
Permeability and Diffusivity of Tight Reservoir Rocks: Different
Approaches and Their Applications. Geofluids 9 (3): 208223. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-8123.2009.00244.x.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2013. AEO2013 Early Release
Overview. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383ER(2013), US DOE, Washington, DC (December 5, 2012).
Ertekin, T., King, G., and Schwerer, F. 1986. Dynamic Gas Slippage: A
Unique Dual-Mechanism Approach to the Flow of Gas in Tight Formations. SPE Form Eval 1 (1): 4352. SPE-12045-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/12045-PA.
Hall, F.E., Chunhe, Z., Gasem, K.A.M., et al. 1994. Adsorption of Pure
Methane, Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide and Their Binary Mixtures on
Wet Fruitland Coal. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, West Virginia, 810 November. SPE-29194-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/29194-MS.
Hoteit, H. and Firoozabadi, A. 2009. Numerical Modeling of Diffusion
in Fractured Media for Gas-Injection and -Recycling Schemes. SPE
J. 14 (2): 323337. SPE-103292-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
103292-PA.
Hudson, J.D., Civan, F., Michel, G., et al. 2012. Modeling Multiple-Porosity Transport in Gas-Bearing Shale Formations. Presented at the SPE
Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Mexico City, Mexico, 1618 April. SPE-153535-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/153535-MS.
Javadpour, F. 2009. Nanopores and Apparent Permeability of Gas Flow
in Mudrocks (Shales and Siltstone). J Can Pet Technol 48 (8): 1621.
PETSOC-09-08-16-DA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-08-16-DA.
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M. 2007. Nanoscale Gas Flow in
Shale Gas Sediments. J Can Pet Technol 46 (10): 5561. PETSOC-0710-06. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/07-10-06.
Dahaghi, A.K. and Mohaghegh, S.D. 2011. Numerical Simulation and
Multiple Realizations for Sensitivity Study of Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2729 March. SPE-141058-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/141058-MS.
Kang, S.M., Faithi, E., Ambrose, R.J., et al. 2010. CO2 Storage Capacity
of Organic-Rich Shales. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922 September. SPE134583-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/134583-MS.
Leahy-Dios, A., Das, M., Agarwal, A., et al. 2011. Modeling of Transport
Phenomena and Multicomponent Sorption for Shale Gas and Coalbed
Methane in an Unstructured Grid Simulator. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30
October2 November. SPE-147352-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
147352-MS.
Mirzaei, M. and Cipolla, C. 2012. A Workflow for Modeling and Simulation of Hydraulic Fractures in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2325 January. SPE-153022-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/153022-MS.
Olson, J.E., Laubach, S.E., and Lander, R.H. 2009. Natural Fracture Characterization in Tight Gas Sandstones: Integrating Mechanics and Diagenesis. AAPG Bull. 93 (11): 15351549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/
08110909100.
153
Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H.F., et al. 2003. Modeling Gas Flow Through
Microchannels and Nanopores. J. Appl. Phys. 93 (8): 48704879.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1559936.
Rubin, B. 2010. Accurate Simulation of Non Darcy Flow in Stimulated
Fractured Shale Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, 2729 May. SPE-132093-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/132093-MS.
Schlumberger. 2010. ECLIPSE: Reservoir Engineering Software. TechnicalDescription and Reference Manual Version 2010. Abingdon, Oxon,
United Kingdom: Schlumberger GeoQuest.
Sun, H., Hockaday, W.C., Masiello, C.A., et al. 2012. Multiple Controls
on the Chemical and Physical Structure of Biochars. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 51 (9): 35873597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie201309r.
Swami, V., Clarkson, C., and Settari, A. 2012. Non-Darcy Flow in Shale
Nanopores: Do We Have a Final Answer? Presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
30 October1 November. SPE-162665-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
162665-MS.
Thararoop, P., Karpyn, Z.T., and Ertekin, T. 2012. Development of a
Multi-Mechanistic, Dual-Porosity, Dual-Permeability, Numerical
Flow Model for Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.8
(September): 121131. http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.jngse.2012.01.004.
Zygourakis, K., Sun, H., and Markenscoff, P. 2013. A Nanoscale Model
for Characterizing the Complex Pore Structure of Biochars. AIChE
J.59 (9): 34123420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.14134.
Hao Sun is a lead reservoir engineer at Chevron Energy Technology Company and has been with the company since
2012. His current focus is to provide unconventional resources/
enhanced oil recovery related technical services for Chevron
business units and provide guidance on developing Chevrons
shale gas reservoir simulation capabilities. Sun received the
2012 SPE Outstanding Technical Editor Award. He holds a PhD
degree in chemical engineering from Rice University.
Adwait Chawathe
leads the Unconventional Resources and
Enhanced Oil Recovery Simulation and Workflow Development group with Chevron Energy Technology Company. He
Stage:
Page: 154
Total Pages: 13
has been with Chevron for 17 years. Chawathe

has authored
or coauthored more than 25 technical papers. He is an active
member of SPE and has served on various SPE Workshop and
Forum committees. Chawathe
has been the review chair for
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering and is the recipient of
numerous SPE Outstanding Technical Editor awards. He holds
a PhD degree in petroleum and natural gas engineering from
Pennsylvania State University.
Hussein Hoteit is a senior reservoir engineer with Chevron
Energy Technology Company in the Integrated Oil RecoveryEnhanced Oil Recovery unit. His current focus is to improve
Chevrons chemical enhanced oil recovery simulation capabilities and to provide chemical enhanced oil recovery
related technical support for business units. Before joining
Chevron, Hoteit worked for ConocoPhillips for 5 years. He has
approximately 12 years of experience in reservoir engineering
and has published more than 25 peer-reviewed papers
related to flow modeling in fractured reservoirs, miscible flooding, steam-assisted gravity drainage, and hydrocarbon phase
behavior. Hoteit was selected as an SPE Distinguished Lecturer
in 2008 and has served as an associate editor for SPE Journal
since 2006. He holds a PhD degree in applied mathematics
from the University of Rennes, France.
Xundan Shi is a senior staff research scientist at Chevron Energy
Technology Company. He has been working on reservoir simulation development for more than 11 years. Shi has authored or
coauthored 22 technical papers. He holds a bachelors degree
in mechanical engineering and a masters degree in engineering mechanics from Zhejiang University, China, as well as a masters degree in computer science and software engineering and
a PhD degree in mechanical engineering from Auburn University.
Lin Li is a senior staff research engineer at Chevron Energy
Technology Company, with responsibilities of managing and
conducting strategic research and technology development
projects for both downstream and upstream applications. He
has more than 25 years of academic and industrial experience in the field of chemical engineering. Li holds bachelors,
masters, and PhD degrees, all in chemical engineering, from
Tianjin University, China.
154


Spe 167753 Pa

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Spe 167753 Pa

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

J167753 DOI: 10.

2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Understanding Shale Gas Flow Behavior

(EIA) estimated approximately 7,300 Tcf of shale gas resources

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

properties of organics from those of inorganics, such as organic

only) model but required a dual porosity (organic and inorganic

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Disconnected micropore organic

At the same time, the gas transport mechanism within shale is

aperture fractures) and DP (organic-to-inorganic material and

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

gradient triggered diffusion. The whole transport process appears

Inorganic material gas transport (gas component i):

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Results and Discussions

Fig. 7 shows the impact of diffusion in organics in the TPDP

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

that the gas molecules travel in the inorganic material. Because

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

H2O (CHEARSTM simulator) 8

Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D)

Water Production Rate (stock tank m3/d)

Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D)

H2O (CHEARSTM simulator) 8

Water Production Rate (stock tank m3/d)

Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D)

CH4 (CMG simulator)

H2O (CMG simulator)

Water Production Rate (stock tank m3/d)

adsorbed gas increases from 5 to 33 wt% of the total gas, OGIP

In Eq. 8, the Peclet number Pe can be used to gauge whether

characteristic length, and Dg is diffusivity. Fig. 12a shows the

Table 1Reservoir simulation parameters.

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

TPDP with Organics Diffusion

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)

11 wt% 1 wt% 5 wt%

Free CH4 in organics

Free CH4 in fracture

this case is to create wider fractures (100 kHF WHF 4 md ft) by

Table 2TPDP model characteristic flow time for real shale.

February 2015 SPE Journal

J167753 DOI: 10.2118/167753-PA Date: 6-February-15

Natural Fracture Permeability

Matrix Diffusion/Convection Ratio

Natural Fracture Porosity

Cumulative CH4 Production (Mscf)