Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
mof~
SPE7921
13@_@mac#AlME
GASOCCURRENCE
1N THEDEVONIAN
SHALE
ABSTRACT
Estimates of recoverable reserves in the
eastern Devonian shales range from a few trillion
cubic feet to several hundred trillion cubic feet.
The most pessimistic estimates assume that all
recoverable gas occurs within natural fracture
porosity. More optimistic estimates assume a
substantial gas contribution from the shale matrix
close to fractures. This paper presents the available evidence for both views including long-term
shale production characteristics,laboratory
measurements on shale cores, and numerical modeling
studies. The weight of all available evidence
favors the position that the matrix provides a
major contribution of the recoverable gas from the
Devonian shales, with a smaller amount derived from
the fracture void volume.
INTRODUCTION
For several years, the Columbia Gas System
Service Corporation has shown an increasing interest
in promoting Devonian shale research and development
t
in the Appalachian Basin. A systematic exploitation
program would hinge upon the drilling ofa large
number of test wells in key parts of the Basin.
This, in turn, requires prior demonstrationof the
basins potential gas supply. Our research cantinues to support estimates of 200 to 900 trillion
cubic feet of potential gas supplies based on production records, core gas content measurements,
well logs and well cuttings descriptions.
?,
=%ib)w~-it)
(1)
q=-+-b
(2)
DISCUSSION
Matrix Gas Model: Schettler(l1) derived a numerics
model from Ficks first and second laws of
diffusion(5)which generated a successful history
mat:h of actual shale gas production for high,
medium, and low volume wells.(Figures 3 and 4).
The model considers two separate cases:
1) wherein constrictions in.the fracture network (i.e., mineral deposits or partial closure)
limit the flow rate of gas diffusing from the
matrix into widely-spaced fractures. The correspending equation accounts for all but the highest
production rates:
Pi-mot-ml(t-tl)-...mntn)tn)
(3)
..
For estimating stepwise gas.influx to the fracture system whicn decreases linearly with time:
%
= rmot15+rm1(t-t1)15+....rmntn)1515
(4)
(t(t-,))
(5,
t-%-l
By considering the fracture porosity small compared to the gas storage capacity of the matrix,
he didnt need to Involve pressure transients in
the fractures. Elkins initially assumedr= 1.0,
P. = 50Gpsi, and P = 490 psi. The above solut]on holds until th~ production from adjacent
fractures begins to interfere - i.e., until a
large fraction of the gas content has drained from
the matrix.
Schettler has shown that the rate of gas diffusion from the Devonian shale matrix can satisfactorily explain the observed production rates.
The objections to the expected slope of the
productivity-timedecline and the diffusion
coefficient do not appear warranted.
Fracture Porosity Model: According to the fracture porosit.ymodel, virtually .Illproducible
gas resides within the naturally-occurringfracture system. Release from the shale matrix proceeds too slowly to contribute significantly.
The support for this model rests on a history
match of production data with calculated Dai-;y
flow prod~~~ion in a uniformly fractured
reservoir~8]. A fracture porosity and permeability so derived can account for the produced
gas volumes. However, a reviewof the input data,
assumptions and data handling provides further
insight into the problem. The matched production
data consists of averages for several groups:
high, medium and low production wells plus
averages over separate geographical areas. After
smoothing the averaged data with Marquardts
Algorithm to fit the curve defined by
f(t) = (l-e-Bt)
(6)
AhTs@Pf
(7)
zfps
defines a required porosity of about 4%. (Remember
that the many variables which have determined the
well spacing make it risky to estimate the true
shale volume d~afnedby a given well). In either
case, these required fracture porosities seem much
higher than those indicated by shale core samples.
Core analyses and descriptions ofover 2500
feet of Devonian shale from producing areas of the
Appalachian Basin (Lincoln County, West Virginia
and Martin County, Kentucky) suggest porosities of
0.0003% to a maximum of 0.01%. (This is based on
observations of less than one natural fracture per
feet and fracture widths frcm 0.001 to 0.03 cm as
measured by Terra Tek of Salt Lake City6)). Moreover, the effective fracture porosity may not reach
these levels as a result of observed carbonate
fracture filllngs.
Columbia has reported effective permeabilities and frac lengths calc:llatedfrom transient(6)
reservoir tests in two West Virginia shale wells
The test interpretationscome from several sources
using a variety of assumed flow periods (ideal
linear, radial and spherical flow). Because the
testing took place during the post-frac clean-up
14.
GAS
OCCURRENCE
IN THE
------....-. .- -..
. .. DEVONIAN SHALE
process, we used the results to compare the effects
of our fracture treatments, but did not-use the
results quantitatively. Kuuskraa etal(8) mentioned that our reported permeabilities lend
support to those generated by their history match.
t
Elkins(7) questioned the basis of this support
We found that our proppant volumes and calculated
fracture lengths require fracture widths of 0.7 to
11.5 inches. In contrast, Halliburtons rock
mechanic$ specialists suggest a maximum width of
0.5 inches and a probi~bleaverage width closer to
0.1 inch. Due to the tests short product~on(71
periods compared to the build-up time, ElkIns
rejects the use of type curve matching for tietermining permeabilities,frac+tirelengths or for
demonstrating radial versus linear flow. Because
of the test period lengths, resulting log-log plots
of build-up pressure vs. time may display a false
linearity(Figure 7).
Elkins(7) noted a linear relationship between
P2 and (-@
for extended times in all of
our tests. Taking this as an indication of linear
flow from the matrix into the induced fractures
(O.1 fracture width with 25% porosity), he calculated an zffective permeabil::yrange from 0.8 to
3.2 microdarcies. This calculation employed the
following equation for linear flow of constant
compressibilityfluids from a semi-infinite slab.
SPE 7921
~p.mt+!M&Li+,.m@~
Ed..
n=o
KW3
(9)
@.)!!-e
(2n+l)3
-K(2n+l)2r2t/4L2
. @s ~
:,
.X
Fand
X 10-5 cm.
w
T=+
(10,11)
=(*JandG=(!fwi~i)
12$13
t=*
(15)
(14)
CONCLUS1ONS
NOMENCLATURE
a = a constant - 7164mcf/day%
b= a constant- 40.5mcf/dy
c = compressibility- psia-f
d= specific degassibility - in cm3/cm2/torr/sec&
f(t) = a function of time
9 constriction faotor - ft
h = net pay thickness
k = permeability - millidarcies
m= pressure decline slope - psia/day
q = production rate - mcf/day
r = a constant that includes effects of fracture
area, permeability, and diffusivity - mcf/psia/
.-.
s =
t =
w=
x =
z =
day%.
fracture spacing - cm
time - days
fracture width - cm
distance in x direction - ft
gas deviation factor - dimensionless
A=
B =
C =
D =
G=
K=
L =
P =
T =
v=
area - ft2
a constant
gas concentration- cf gas cf shale
diffusion coefficient - fti/day
cumulative gas production in mcf
a constant= 1000 k/(w$c)
fracture spacing + 2 - feet
pressure - psi~
temperature - R
volume - Cf
,
Greek
o = porosity - dimensionless
u = viscosity - Cp
Subscripts
f =
i =
n =
s =
t=
w =
x=
formation
initial
nth term
standard
value at time t
well bore
open fracture
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1.
2.
9.
3.
4.
5.
6.
:=;
7.
12.
8.
13. Smith, E.C.: A Practical Approach to Evaluating Shale Hydrocarbon Potential, In:
Proceedings Second Eastern Gas Shales Symposiuml
Morgantown Energy Technology Center, U.S.
Department of Energy, Morgantown, Vol. II,
pp. 73-87, (1978).
10.
320 -
260
240
t
200
-t
40
12
16
YEAR6
:-
2C
Soo.
SMOOTUSD DATA
a H16H 2622
: il$X&d&E
4 HWI CA6E
m Kuw
CASE
LWC5S4
\
\
MEOIUMC&
ACTUAL DATA
6
5
4
300
200
o
LOWCA%E
II
200
60
60
40
=..,,.,
$
g
- /ij
u
,00
ACTUAL
PROOIJCTIOH
MTA
0 Awwiq
1~
20
,0
D Amllwlg da twwltol
fmwwa Prtaolt.
-r-
30
9i14
6Ulbli?
14161Stiti24
262jkwAJlS
&
io
TIME ( TEARS)
-100,000
Owlatioh
fromLinwily
0
0
:B
K
-10,000
PR@UCTION PERI~
= 200
,10
HOURS
,100
After Elkfna{7)
1,000
[{
,4
.3
!
*.e
100
.1
i
o+
o
~Y,,,,,
!1
.3
.4
.5
Nofmolixd
.6
.7
.8
.s
<0
1
200
100
I
SW
I
400
*
C&o
fimo ( Kt/~}
Gp
Ftg. 8- Relationship of recovery efficiency versus time.
Aitsr Kuuskraa et al (e)dsrived from Carelaw and Jaegers
iiork, (3)
(WWF)
......
11
... .
y.11
Sg.ii
OA
1 74
AA
qe ~
8 O*
y.,
~ +
176.
fvf
sp.>
spa
sp
Wy
q#.a
.m.8
......................................
~a
-.
w
_..Awmbllec
- -
akmah
u ~Se.s
emmr~-wt
RDmd