Dynamic threshold pressure gradient in tight gas reservoir and its influence on well productivity

  • Jingchen DingEmail author
  • Shenglai Yang
  • Tongsheng Cao
  • Jianbiao Wu
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Geo-Resources-Earth-Environmental Sciences


Flow in tight gas reservoirs shows significant non-Darcy behavior and threshold pressure gradient (TPG) due to complex geological conditions. The conventional TPG test always leads to a remarkable error because of gas slippage effect, especially for tight cores. In this paper, experimental approaches were carried out using specially designed core-flooding system to determine the accurate TPG under reservoir conditions. TPG variations of tight core at different developmental stages (different pore pressure) were investigated by using new experimental method. Results indicate that TPG of tight gas reservoir is highly effected by pore pressure and conventional experimental method will lead to a significant error: TPG obtained from conventional experimental method are much higher. The experimentally observed TPG under different pore pressure suggest that TPG is not constant during the development of reservoir, but varies with the change of pore pressure, we call it “dynamic threshold pressure gradient (DTPG)”: TPG exhibits a substantial linear increase with decreasing pore pressure. New productivity model of tight gas reservoir with DTPG effect and stress sensitivity being taken into account was established and case studied on the basis of experiments. Results show that gas well productivity with consideration of DTPG is lower than productivity obtained from conventional model which considering constant TPG.


Threshold pressure gradient Tight gas reservoir Experimental study Productivity model 



The authors would like to give special thanks to Aimin Wei for his great help in preparing the experiments.

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant (No. 2016ZX05048).


  1. Chao Z, Xiaodong W, Hui L, Zongxiao R, Yinan X (2016) Influence of in-situ stress distribution on selection of fracturing fluid backflow technology. Acta Phys Pol A 130:347–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ganguli SS, Vedanti N, Akervoll I, Dimri VP (2016) Assessing the feasibility of CO2-enhanced oil recovery and storage in mature oil field: a case study from Cambay Basin. J Geol Soc India 88:273–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ganguli SS, (2017) Integrated reservoir studies for CO2-enhanced oil recovery and sequestration: application to an Indian mature oil field. Springer Thesis Series, Springer International Publishing p.181.
  4. Ganguli SS, Vedanti N, Dimri VP (2017) Investigating CO2-enhanced oil recovery potential for a mature oil field: a case study based on Ankleshwar oil field, Cambay Basin. India Arab J Geosci 10(5):124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guo JJ, Zhang S, Zhang LH, Qing HR, Liu QG (2012) Well testing analysis for horizontal well with consideration of threshold pressure gradient in tight gas reservoirs. J Hydrodyn 04:561–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hao F, Cheng LS, Hassan O, Hou J, Liu CZ, Feng JD (2008) Threshold pressure gradient in ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Pet Sci Technol 09:1024–1035. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hassker GL, Brunner E, Deahl TJ (1944) The role of capillarity in oil production. Trans AIME 155:155–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holditch SA (2006) Tight gas sands. J Pet Technol 06:86–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. İyit N, Yonar H, Genç A (2016) Generalized linear models for European union countries energy data. Acta Phys Pol A 130:397–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koru M, Serçe O (2016) Experimental and numerical determination of casting-mold interfacial heat transfer coefficient in the high pressure die casting of a-360 aluminum alloy. Acta Phys Pol A 130:347–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karaali R, Öztürk IT (2015) Thermoeconomic analyses of steam injected gas turbine cogeneration cycles. Acta Phys Pol A 128:279–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li K, Horne RN (2004) Experimental study of gas slippage in two-phase flow. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 7(06):409–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Prada A, Civan F (1999) Modification of Darcy’s law for the threshold pressure gradient. J Pet Sci Eng 04:237–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Song FQ, Jiang RJ, Bian SL (2007) Measurement of threshold pressure gradient of microchannels by static method. Chin Phys Lett 07:1995–1998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tang GH, Tao WQ, He YL (2005) Gas slippage effect on microscale porous flow using the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys Rev E 02:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomas LK, Katz DL (1968) Threshold pressure phenomena in porous media. Soc Pet Eng J 08:174–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tussing AR, Barlow CC (1984) Natural gas industry: evolution, structure, and economics. Ballinger Publishing Co., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Wei Y, Jia A, He D, Wang J, Han P, Jin Y (2017) Comparative analysis of development characteristics and technologies between shale gas and tight gas in China. Nat Gas Ind 06:64–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Xiong W, Lei Q, GaoS HZ, Xue H (2009) Pseudo threshold pressure gradient to flow for low permeability reservoirs. Pet Explor Dev 02:232–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yang T, Zhang G, Liang K, Zheng M, Guo B (2012) The exploration of global tight sandstone gas and forecast of the development tendency in China. Eng Sci 06:64–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Post-Doctoral Research StationChengdu University of TechnologyChengduChina
  2. 2.Exploration and Development Research InstituteSINOPEC North China CompanyZhengzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Petroleum EngineeringChina University of Petroleum (Beijing)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations