Advertisement

Experimental study of gas flow characteristics in micro-/nano-pores in tight and shale reservoirs using microtubes under high pressure and low pressure gradients

  • Xin FangEmail author
  • Xiang’an Yue
  • Weiqing An
  • Xuegang Feng
Research Paper
  • 111 Downloads

Abstract

Due to abundant micro-/nanoscale pores and throats, gas flow behavior in tight/shale reservoirs always showed strongly nonlinearity which deviated from the conventional Darcy’s law. As micro-/nanoscale flow experiment was a direct approach to investigate flow characteristic, in this paper, we improved the microscale flow experiment which was widely used in the field of MEMS to adapt for high-pressure conditions. By using microtubes with inner diameter ranging from 0.2 to 5 µm, we investigated the low velocity nonlinear flow characteristic of nitrogen especially under high pressures. In addition, we used experimental results to evaluate the accuracy of three typical flow models which were widely used in gas apparent permeability determination. The results indicated that gas flow behavior in microtube under high outlet pressures was opposite to that under low outlet pressures. When the outlet pressure was low, slippage effect had a great influence on the flow. With the increase in the pressure gradient, the slippage effect became weakened. And the slippage effect would disappear with the increase in the outlet pressure as well as tube inner diameter. The minimum outlet pressure for eliminating the slippage effect of nitrogen for the 0.2 µm tube was 10 MPa which decreased with the tube diameter. However, under high outlet pressures, the flow resistance increased in the region with smaller pressure gradients and varied inversely with the pressure gradient. This phenomenon became more significant with the increase in the outlet pressure and the decrease in the tube inner diameter. From the comparison of 3 typical flow models against our experimental results, we can find different models will match with the data measured under different mean pressures. And the applicability of those models also varied with the tube inner diameter. Thus, it was crucial to select an appropriate model according to different reservoir conditions.

Keywords

High pressure Low pressure gradient Microtube Microscale flow experiment Gas flow characteristic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51334007) and National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016ZX05009004-003). The authors are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their careful reviews and detailed comments that have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. An WQ et al (2016) The deviation of gas permeability and classical theory in tight reservoir cores with high pressure. J Nat Gas Sci Eng30:331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An WQ, Yue XA, Feng XG, Fu J, Fang X, Zou JR, Fang W (2017) Non-Klinkenberg slippage phenomenon at high pressure for tight core floods using a novel high pressure gas permeability measurement system. J Petrol Sci Eng 156:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beskok A, Karniadakis GE (1999) Report: a model for flows in channels, pipes, and ducts at micro and nano scales. Microscale Thermophys Eng3(1):43–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beskok A, Karniadakis G (2002) Microflows: fundamentals and simulation. Springer, New York, p B76Google Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya DK, Lie GC (1991) Nonequilibrium gas flow in the transition regime: a molecular-dynamics study. Phys Rev A43(43):761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird GA (2003) Molecular gas dynamics and the direct simulation of gas flows. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Civan F (2010) Effective Correlation of apparent gas permeability in tight porous media. Transp Porous Med82(2):375–384MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Civan F (2013) Modeling gas flow through hydraulically-fractured shale-gas reservoirs involving molecular-to-inertial transport regimes and threshold-pressure gradient. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition society of petroleum engineersGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui H, Silberli Z, Zhu S (2004) Flow characteristics of liquids in microtubes driven by a high pressure. Phys Fluids16(5):1803–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curtis ME et al (2012) Microstructural investigation of gas shales in two and three dimensions using nanometer-scale resolution imaging. Aapg Bull96(4):665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertekin GR, King, Schwerer FC (1986) Dynamic gas slippage: a unique dual-mechanism approach to the flow of gas in tight formations. Spe Format Evaluat1(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florence F et al (2007) Improved permeability prediction relations for low permeability sands. In: Rocky mountain oil and gas technology symposiumGoogle Scholar
  13. Geng L et al (2016) A diffusion–viscous flow model for simulating shale gas transport in nano-pores. Fuel181:887–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo C et al (2015) Study on gas flow through nano pores of shale gas reservoirs. Fuel143:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hornyak GL, Tibbals HF, Dutta J, Moore JJ (2008) Introduction to nanoscience and nanotechnology. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kawata Y, Fujita K (2001) Some predictions of possible unconventional hydrocarbons availability until 2100. In: SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohl MJ et al (2005) An experimental investigation of microchannel flow with internal pressure measurements. Int J Heat Mass Transf48(8):1518–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemmon EW, Huber ML, Mclinden MO (2010) NIST standard reference database 23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP, Version 9.1. NIST NSRDSGoogle Scholar
  19. Li S, Dong M, Li Z (2009) Measurement and revised interpretation of gas flow behavior in tight reservoir cores. J Petrol Sci Eng65(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu Q, Shen P, Yang P (2002) Pore scale network modelling of gas slippage in tight porous media. In: Fluid flow and transport in porous media mathematical and numerical treatment, p 367–375Google Scholar
  21. Loucks RG et al (2015) Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett shale. J Sediment Res79(12):848–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marino L (2009) Experiments on rarefied gas flows through tubes. Microfluid Nanofluid6(1):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason EA, Malinauskas AP (1983) Gas transport in porous media: the dusty-gas model. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. Morini GL, Lorenzini M, Salvigni S (2006) Friction characteristics of compressible gas flows in microtubes. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci30(8):733–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roy S et al (2003) Modeling gas flow through microchannels and nanopores. J Appl Phys93(8):4870–4879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sakhaee-Pour A, Bryant S (2012) Gas permeability of shale. Spe Reser Evaluat Eng15(4):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salam DD (2015) Novel analysis to determine gas permeability. In: Spe technical conference and exhibitionGoogle Scholar
  28. Shahri MR, Aguilera R, Kantzas A (2012) A new unified diffusion-viscous flow model based on pore level studies of tight gas formations. Spe J18(1):38–49Google Scholar
  29. Shaoliang XU, Yue XA, Hou JR (2007) Experimental investigation on flow characteristics of deionized water in microtubes. Chin Sci Bull52(6):849–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shi J et al (2013) Diffusion and flow mechanisms of shale gas through matrix pores and gas production forecastingGoogle Scholar
  31. Song W et al (2016) Apparent gas permeability in an organic-rich shale reservoir. Fuel181:973–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinke ME, Kandlikar SG (2005) Single-phase liquid friction factors in microchannels. Int J Therm Sci45(11):1073–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun H et al (2015) Understanding shale gas flow behavior using numerical simulation. Spe J20(1):142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tian W et al (2018) The threshold pressure gradient effect in the tight sandstone gas reservoirs with high water saturation. Fuel226:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tokumasu T, Matsumoto Y (1999) Dynamic molecular collision (DMC) model for rarefied gas flow simulations by the DSMC method. Phys Fluids11(7):1907–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Z, Krupnick A (2013) A retrospective review of shale gas development in the United States: what led to the boom?Soc Sci Electron Publ (2013) 4(1)Google Scholar
  37. Wang M, Li Z (2003) Nonideal gas flow and heat transfer in micro- and nanochannels using the direct simulation Monte Carlo method. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Mater Phys68(4 Pt 2):046704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang FP, Reed RM (2009) Pore networks and fluid flow in gas shales. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  39. White FM (2006) Viscous Fluid Flow20(4):548–550Google Scholar
  40. Wu K et al (2014) Apparent permeability for gas flow in shale reservoirs coupling effects of gas diffusion and desorption. In: Unconventional resources technology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu K, Chen Z, Li X (2015) Real gas transport through nanopores of varying cross-section type and shape in shale gas reservoirs. Chem Eng J281(281):813–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu K et al (2016) A model for multiple transport mechanisms through nanopores of shale gas reservoirs with real gas effect–adsorption-mechanic coupling. Int J Heat Mass Transf93:408–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu K, Chen Z, Li X (2017a) Flow behavior of gas confined in nanoporous shale at high pressure: real gas effect. Fuel205:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu J et al (2017b) Experimental study of nonlinear flow in micropores under low pressure gradient. Transp Porous Media119(1):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang Z et al (2015) Threshold pressure effect of low permeability tight gas reservoirs in Sulige gas field. Acta Petrol Sin36(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang P et al (2015) A multi-flow regimes model for simulating gas transport in shale matrix. Géotech Lett5(July–September):231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ziarani AS, Aguilera R (2012) Knudsen’s permeability correction for tight porous media. Transp Porous Media91(1):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zou C et al (2012) Types,characteristics,genesis and prospects of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon accumulations:taking tight oil and tight gas in China as an instance. Acta Petrol Sin33(2):173–187MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Engineering, Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering Ministry of EducationChina University of PetroleumBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations