Influences of test method and loading history on permeability of tight reservoir rocks
Introduction
Explorations of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs have attracted more attentions in recent years [1]. Their deep burial depths result in low porosities and permeabilities, therefore artificial fractures are often created by hydraulic fracturing for field exploration [2]. However, majority of the rock mass remains intact and the long-term production depends on the matrix permeability. Compared with conventional reservoir rocks, the accuracy of flow rate measurement suffers and the time duration is prolonged for steady-state permeability test of unconventional reservoir rocks. Therefore, many researchers used unsteady-state permeability tests for tight rocks, which are based on pressure variations instead of the flow rate measurement [3].
The pulse decay method proposed by Brace et al. [4] is a widely used unsteady-state approach to obtaining the permeability of tight rocks. It is more representative of the in situ pressure conditions, and the variation of the sample pore pressure is small resulting in relatively stable fluid properties. Furthermore, only the reservoir pressures need to be recorded which simplifies the testing process. However, Brace et al. [4] ignored the sample storage volume, which results in the underestimation of permeability [5]. Dicker and Smits [6] proposed an analytical approach which takes the sample pore volume into consideration. Researchers found that its discrepancy with Brace’s method increases with the porosity [7]. Metwally and Sondergeld [8] made the experiment and analysis simpler by observing the downstream pressure build-up from the atmosphere condition while maintaining a constant upstream pressure. Both steady-state and unsteady-state permeability test methods can be used to measure the permeability of tight rocks, but the obtained results are usually different. Some researchers found that the permeability measured by the pulse decay method is higher than that measured by the steady-state method [9,10], while others observed the opposite trend [11,12]. Therefore, further investigation is needed to compare the permeability derived by the steady-state and unsteady-state methods.
In addition to permeability test methods [9,11,13,14] and their analysis approaches [5,7], laboratory-measured permeability also depends on the fluid properties [5], [16], [41]. It is found that gas permeability is always higher than liquid permeability for tight rocks, which is attributed to the gas slip flow at the surface of solid wall [17]. The relationship between the gas apparent permeability and intrinsic permeability is expressed by Eq. [1], which shows that gas permeability is linearly related to the reciprocal of the gas pressure. The slippage effect is determined by the gas mean free path and pore radius, while the gas mean free path is a function of gas type, pressure, viscosity and temperature as shown in Eq. [2]. The mean pore radius can be obtained from mercury intrusion porosity test [18], or statistical 2-D or 3-D image analysis [19]. In addition to the first-order Klinkenberg correction, second-order [20] or even higher-order corrections [21] are proposed to account for the relationship between gas permeability and the average pore pressure.where, and are the gas’s apparent and intrinsic permeabilities respectively, is the gas slip coefficient, is the average gas pressure, is the gas mean free path, is the mean pore radius, is a constant close to unity, is the gas viscosity, is the universal gas constant, is the absolute temperature, is the gas molecular mass, and is the gas pressure.
Gas properties, like viscosity and compressibility factor, change significantly with pressure. Therefore, pseudo pressure was proposed by Al-Hussainy, Rafi et al. [22] to account for the variations of gas property with pressure, especially for tests with high pressure gradients. However, few studies have uncovered the differences between permeabilities based on pseudo pressure and real pressure.
Effective stress is the main influencing factor for variations of intrinsic permeability [23,24], and unconventional oil and gas reservoirs are more sensitive to changes in the effective stress than conventional formations. The laboratory-measured sandstone permeability varies between 10−14 to 10−13 m2, while the silty shale permeability varies from 10−20 to 10−15 m2 under the same confining pressure range [25]. Changes of matrix porosity and permeability with the effective stress are usually expressed by exponential or power relationships [15,26]. Permeability and porosity are not only functions of the current stress but also depend on the stress history. Researchers found that porosity and permeability are always lower in the unloading path than in the loading path at the same effective stress due to inelastic deformation [25], and their stress sensitivities are also smaller in the unloading path.
Although both steady-state and unsteady-state permeability tests can be used for tight rocks, their comparisons are still not very clear. The analysis of unsteady–state permeability tests needs to be better understood for their appropriate use. The influences of confining pressure and pore pressure on permeability need further investigation in order to better predict the gas and oil production during exploration.
Section snippets
Sample description and preparation
The sample used to conduct the permeability tests is Eidsvold siltstone from Queensland, Australia. It was cored into cylinder with a diameter of 38 mm from a siltstone block provided by a local quarry, then cut and ground to the length of 210 mm with parallel and smooth end surfaces in the 3G Deep Laboratory at Monash University. The sample was dried in an oven at 60 °C for 72 h, then it was wrapped in a heat-shrink Teflon sleeve and a rubber membrane to be isolated from the confining fluids.
Characteristics of downstream pressure build-up curve
The downstream pressure () increased gradually until reaching the upstream pressure () in the unsteady-state permeability test. Fig. 2 shows the curves at different for the confining pressure of 10 MPa in the loading process. All curves display an “S” shape, and these “S” shape curves can be characterized by several characteristic points. Fig. 3 (a) shows the characteristic points marked on the curve for the at 4 MPa under the confinement of 10 MPa in the loading path. After
Discussion
Permeability in the build-up test should be calculated after the initial pore filling stage, because it takes time for the gas pressure distribution in the sample to follow Darcy’s law. In addition, a long workable time [35] for the differential pressure between and to be higher than a certain value is guaranteed in the build-up test. When the sample pore volume is ignored, the mass flow rate at the sample inlet and outlet should be the same for the permeability derivation. In fact,
Conclusions
A series of unsteady-state and steady-state gas permeability tests were conducted in the loading and unloading processes, followed by the steady-state water permeability tests. The unsteady-state gas permeability tests were conducted by observing the build-up at constant , and the same time period was used for the permeability derivation by different approaches. Comparisons are made between the gas permeabilities measured by the steady-state and unsteady-state methods, and the differences
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that there is no conflict of interests.
References (37)
- et al.
Unconventional gas–a review of regional and global resource estimates
Energy
(2013) - et al.
Laboratory measurement of low permeability unconventional gas reservoir rocks: a review of experimental methods
J Nat Gas Sci Eng
(2017) - et al.
Laboratory investigations of gas flow behaviors in tight anthracite and evaluation of different pulse-decay methods on permeability estimation
Int J Coal Geol
(2015) - et al.
Measuring low permeabilities of gas-sands and shales using a pressure transmission technique
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
(2011) - et al.
Tight rock permeability measurement by pressure pulse decay and modeling
Scaweb. Org
(2013) - et al.
A laboratory study of the porosity-permeability relationships of shale and sandstone under effective stress
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
(2016) - et al.
An experimental evaluation of unique CO2 flow behaviour in loosely held fine particles rich sandstone under deep reservoir conditions and influencing factors
Energy
(2017) - et al.
Stress-dependence of the permeability and porosity of sandstone and shale from TCDP Hole-A
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
(2010) - et al.
Experimental study of fluid transport processes in the matrix system of the European organic-rich shales: I. Scandinavian Alum Shale
Mar Pet Geol
(2014) - et al.
Effect of bedding planes, their orientation and clay depositions on effective re-injection of produced brine into clay rich deep sandstone formations: implications for deep earth energy extraction
Appl Energy
(2016)
Measuring permeabilities of Middle-Bakken samples using three different methods
J Nat Gas Sci Eng
Effect of low-velocity non-Darcy flow on well production performance in shale and tight oil reservoirs
Fuel
Hydraulic fracturing: history of an enduring technology
J Pet Technol
Permeability of granite under high pressure
J Geophys Res
A practical approach for determining permeability from laboratory pressure-pulse decay measurements
Int Meeting Petrol Eng Soc Petrol Eng
Evaluation of various pulse-decay laboratory permeability measurement techniques for highly stressed coals
Rock Mech Rock Eng
Low permeability measurements using steady-state and transient methods
New method research of tight oil reservoir pulse decay permeability measurement
Adv Mater Res Trans Tech Publ
Cited by (13)
In-depth analysis of ultrasonic-induced geological pore re-structures
2022, Ultrasonics SonochemistryCitation Excerpt :Geological porous media, particularly those with complex structures and low-permeability, attract increasing attentions due to the geo-energy productions and geological site usages for energy storages [1–3]. It is the key to the development of low permeability reservoirs that how to established an effective displacement pressure system between injection and production wells [4–6]. Unfortunately, the rapid pressure drop caused by the increase of seepage resistance near vertical wellbore is disadvantage to the establishment of effective inter-well displacement pressure system [7,8].
A novel approach to identify accessible and inaccessible pores in gas shales using combined low-pressure sorption and SAXS/SANS analysis
2020, International Journal of Coal GeologyCitation Excerpt :Gases escape from the pores through permeable spaces inside the reservoir (fractures/cracks/channels) when the reservoir pressure condition is altered (Huang et al., 2020; Nelson, 2009; Wang et al., 2020a). Hence, the major factors that determine the gas-storing capacity as well as the flow of gas inside the reservoir are its adsorption potential, porosity, and permeability (Achang et al., 2017, 2019; Hu et al., 2014; Koteeswaran et al., 2018; Liu and Hou, 2019; Loucks et al., 2009; Obasi and Pashin, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). Understanding the pore attributes of shale reservoirs has always proven to be difficult due to their heterogeneity and exclusive accessibility, which is limited to sophisticated instruments that are able to probe and resolve nanoscale structures.
Adaptation of transient well test results
2023, Journal of Mining Institute