Modeling chromatographic separation of produced gas in shale wells

Rezaveisi, Mohsen; Javadpour, Farzam; Sepehrnoori, Kamy

doi:10.1016/j.coal.2013.11.005

Cited by 29 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We then present a methodology to measure the liquid slip coefficient for a shale sample using atomic force microscope (AFM) metrology [8]. Note that the concept of liquid slip [10] is similar to gas slip [7,[11][12][13][14], but the measuring methodologies, the values, and implementation in flow equations are different. Measured values of slip length are implemented in a modified stochastic permeability model [15] to determine the effective permeability of the shale matrix.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale

Javadpour

McClure

Naraghi

2015

Fuel

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale

Javadpour

McClure

Naraghi

2015

Fuel

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thanks to the novel technology of horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing, hydrocarbon is being produced from previously inaccessible fine-grained shale, a kind of organic-rich shale with extremely low permeability (tens of nD to tens of μD) (Hughes, 2013;Javadpour, 2009;Kerr, 2010;Rezaveisi et al, 2014;. Because the large price gap between oil and natural gas has increasingly shifted the attention of investors to more profitable shale oil, particularly with the lessons learned from shale gas, the U.S. industry began to explore the development of liquid in shale (Cardott, 2012;Jarvie, 2012;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oil adsorption in shale nanopores and its effect on recoverable oil-in-place

Wang

Feng

Javadpour

et al. 2015

International Journal of Coal Geology

Self Cite

214

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, molecular size and affinity of the adsorbate for surface are important factors controlling the sorption process in nanoporous shales (Rezaveisi et al, 2014). The smaller size of water molecules compared with N 2 and CO 2 molecules (Ernst, 2009) favours capillary condensation of water.…”

Section: N 2 and Co 2 Sorption Isotherms (Bet Test)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pore Size Distribution from Water Adsorption Isotherm

Zolfaghari

Dehghanpour

2015

Day 3 Wed, September 30, 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Petrophysical characterization of unconventional rocks is an important challenge faced by the industry for reservoir evaluation. In particular, characterizing the pore size distribution (PSD) of tight rocks is challenging due to their small pore size and presence of clay minerals. In this paper, we develope a model to characterize PSD of shales using water adsorption isotherms. We apply the model on several shale samples and compare the results with the PSDs obtained from BET (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) analysis using the N 2 and CO 2 adsorption isotherms.The proposed model describes the relationship between the cumulative adsorbed water and the size of the invaded pores due to capillary condensation during the water adsorption process. A set-up is designed to obtain water adsorption isotherms. The shale samples are placed in a sealed environment with a controlled relative humidity (RH). Different saturated salt solutions are used to control RH. At the end of the adsorption process, the model is applied to calculate PSD of the shale samples using their water adsorption isotherm. In order to evaluate the model results, we used BET analysis to obtain PSD from the N 2 and CO 2 adsorption isotherms. Moreover, the specific surface area (SSA), pore volume (PV) and the average pore size of the shale samples are also obtained from the BET analysis to compare the proposed model and BET results. The results of both BET and the proposed model indicate that the majority of the pores are smaller than 10 nm. However, the model results from the water adsorption show a bimodal PSD, while the BET analysis shows a unimodal PSD. Also, the model calculates small pores of less than 1 nm, while BET does not detect these pores. Water adsorption by clay minerals at low RH values is a possible reason for this discrepancy. Furthermore, the sample with higher clay content shows larger hysteresis at the end of the sorption (adsorption-desorption) experiment; suggesting that the clay-bound water cannot be easily removed during the desorption process.

show abstract

Modeling chromatographic separation of produced gas in shale wells

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale

Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale

Oil adsorption in shale nanopores and its effect on recoverable oil-in-place

Pore Size Distribution from Water Adsorption Isotherm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About