Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Gas-in-Place Calculations in Shale Gas Reservoirs using Experimental Adsorption Data with Adsorption Models

Sukru Merey* and Caglar Sinayuc

Middle East Technical University, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

In this research, experimental adsorption measurements for a Dadas shale sample were conducted at various pressures (up to 13 790 kPa (2000 psia)) and temperatures (25, 50, and 75 8C) using pure methane (CH 4 ). The effects of temperature and pressure on adsorption were observed. As pressure increases, CH 4 adsorption increases. However, as temperature increases, CH 4 adsorption decreases. Moreover, by using Langmuir isotherm and Ono-Kondo models, experimental adsorption results were evaluated and adsorption isotherms were constructed. Although Ono-Kondo and Langmuir isotherm models have similar ttings to the experimental adsorption data of Dadas shale, Ono-Kondo models have several advantages. Different from Langmuir isotherms, the volume of adsorbed uid, absolute adsorption data, and surface area of Dadas shale sample were predicted by Ono-Kondo models. By comparing the results of the Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer models, the adsorption type of the Dadas shale sample was found as a monolayer (Type I). It was concluded that the Ono-Kondo monolayer model is capable of tting adsorption isotherms, especially at high pressures for shale samples. For initial gas-in-place calculations, the equations derived using the Langmuir isotherm were modi ed by the Ono-Kondo monolayer model. For the rst time, the Ono-Kondo monolayer model was used in the formula of initial gas-in-place calculation. This formula provides better adsorption data evaluation, initial gas-in-place amounts, and adsorbed gas ratios in shale gas reservoir conditions compared to the values obtained with the Langmuir isotherm. This method is suggested to be used in ow and gas production simulations of shale gas reservoirs.

Keywords: shale gas, gas-in-place, CH 4 adsorption, adsorption models, Ono-Kondo model

INTRODUCTION

T he amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the world is 200 730 m 3 (7795 trillion cubic feet (tcf)) according to the Energy Information Administration. [1] This amount is

crucial to ful l the worlds natural gas demand in the future. In shale gas reservoirs, signi cant amounts of natural gas exist as conventional free gas in porous spaces as well as adsorbed gas on the shale matrix. [2] When a gas and a solid interact, there are intermolecular attractive forces between them. If these intermo- lecular attractive forces are greater than those existing between molecules of the gas itself, gas accumulates on the solid surface. This phenomenon is called adsorption of gas on solid. [3] Adsorption capacities of shale gas reservoirs range from 20 85 %. [2] Although shale gas reservoirs have low porosity and extremely low permeability values (9.869 10 21 9.869 10 20 m 2 (10 100 nanodarcies)), hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling operations make gas production feasible from these reservoirs. [4,5] Hence, understanding adsorption capacities and behaviours of shale gas reservoirs is vital in exploitation and resource evaluation. To calculate initial gas-in-place, determining adsorp- tion capacity of a shale gas reservoir is also very crucial. However, initial gas-in-place calculations of shale gas reservoirs are quite different from other conventional gas reservoirs, because gas is stored as both a free phase and adsorbed phase. [5,6] Adsorption experiments are important for understanding the amount of gas-in-place and adsorbed gas ratio in shale formations. Chareonsuppanimit et al. [7] measured adsorption capacities of methane (CH 4 ), nitrogen (N 2 ), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) on New Albany shales at 328.2 K and pressures up to 12.4 MPa. The adsorption capacities of CO 2 on samples are higher than CH 4 adsorption capacities. The lowest adsorption capacities were obtained for N 2 . For the evaluation of adsorption data, a simplied

local-density (SLD) model was applied for CH 4 and CO 2 . Similarly, Lu et al. [8] determined the adsorption capacity of CH 4 on 24 samples of Devonian shale. It was proposed that the CH 4 adsorption capacity is > 50 % of the total gas stored. Moreover, the adsorption capacity of shales depends mainly on total organic carbon content (TOC) and clay content such as illite. [7,8,9,10] There are two different experimental procedures to measure adsorption capacities: the gravimetric and volumetric methods. The volumet- ric method is the most common method for adsorption experi- ments. [7,8,9,10,11,12,13] In the volumetric method, adsorption capacity is determined by measuring pressure changes in a reference cell and a sample cell. In this study, the volumetric method was also used to measure adsorption, because it is cheap and easy to apply compared to the gravimetric method. [11,12] There are many adsorption models, such as the Langmuir isotherm, BET isotherm, Freundlich Isotherm, Ono-Kondo model, etc. [13,14] However, the Langmuir isotherm is commonly used for evaluating adsorption data, because it is easy to use and practical for engineering purposes. [11,14,15] After determining the adsorp- tion data of a shale gas reservoir, the constants of adsorption models are found. These constants and adsorption models are integrated into the simulators. These simulators are mainly used to predict ow type and gas production from shale gas reservoirs. Adsorption data and models provide information about the amount of gas-in-place and the adsorbed gas ratio at different

* Author to whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail address: merey@metu.edu.tr Can. J. Chem. Eng. 94:1683 1692, 2016 © 2016 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering DOI 10.1002/cjce.22538 Published online 22 June 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1683

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1683

production pressures. For ow and diffusivity equations, these data are very important. Leahy-Dios et al. [16] proposed two different transport models to model the ow through shale gas and coal-bed methane (CBM). They developed a new multicomponent adsorption model. The difference in cumulative gas production between the model and eld data is 10 %. Similarly, Feast et al. [17] developed their simulator using BET and the Langmuir isotherm. They compared their model data with the actual eld data of the Marcellus shale eld and a good history match was obtained. Generally, it is assumed that natural gas includes 100 % CH 4 during the adsorption studies. However, Hartman et al. [18] extended the Langmuir model to calculate the initial gas-in-place amount for a natural gas mixture. Moreover, by using their modelling and Monte Carlo simulation methods, the adsorbed- phase density of the natural gas mixture was predicted. They concluded that although the total gas storage capacity predictions may not be in uenced by the gas mixture composition, a signi cant adsorbed amount could be predicted incorrectly by considering the gas-in-place as pure CH 4 and/or by not consider- ing the adsorption layer effect. When pressure increases, the adsorption capacity increases. Hence, the volume of adsorbed gas becomes important when the adsorbed gas amount increases, and this was called the adsorbed layer effect by Hartman et al. [18] However, the adsorption layer effect is generally ignored. Different than the study of Hartman et al., [18] for determining the volume of adsorbed uid, Ono-Kondo models were used in this study. This model was used in a few studies for the evaluation of adsorption data. [19,20,21] None of these studies try to use the model data to predict initial gas-in-place amounts and adsorbed gas ratios in shale gas reservoirs by using Ono-Kondo models. However, this is the aim of this study. In this study, the adsorption capacities of a shale sample taken from the Dadas Formation (TOC: 4 % and medium clay content) in Turkey at 25, 50, and 75 8C were measured using the volumetric adsorption experimental setup. Then, experimental adsorption data were evaluated by Langmuir isotherm and Ono-Kondo models. In this study, MATLAB codes were written for Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer models, which are used for the evaluation of experimental adsorption data and layered structure of adsorption. Moreover, the Ono-Kondo model was used to calculate the surface area of the shale sample. Finally, using the Ono-Kondo monolayer model and taking into account the adsorbed volume on the surface of the adsorbent, a formula was proposed for initial shale gas-in-place calculations after modifying Ambrose et al.s [22] formula.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample Preparation

Adsorption experiments were performed on powdered samples of BPL activated carbon and shale samples that were ground and sieved to 0.297 0.177 mm particle size (50/80 mesh size) using a standard screening method. BPL activated carbon was used in this study to prove the reliability of adsorption experimental setup and calculation procedures. BPL is a virgin granular activated carbon designed for use in gas-phase applications. It is a bituminous coal- based product activated at a high temperature in a steam atmosphere. Because of its surface area, density, and strength characteristics, BPL can be reactivated for reuse and thus eliminate disposal problems. [23] Shale and BPL samples were dried in a vacuum oven at 105 8C for 24 h until constant mass was achieved before each

isotherm measurement. This procedure was used to ensure that samples were completely dry and that any adsorbed gas was completely removed from the samples. Moreover, after putting samples into the sample cell, the lled sample cell was connected to the experimental setup and system leak tests were performed using helium (0.9999 g/g, 99.99 mass % purity) because helium is a non-adsorbing gas. [12] Pressure and tempera- ture were monitored with pressure transducers (accuracy 6.894 757 kPa ( 1 psia)) and thermocouples (accuracy 0.2 8C) every 10 s during the test. After there were no leakages in the system for 24 h, void volume and adsorption experiments were conducted.

Experimental Procedure

In this study, the volumetric method was used to measure adsorption capacity. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. The sample cell is lled with the adsorbent (sample) to be studied. After connecting the sample cell and the reference cell, the whole system is put into a constant temperature water bath. At the beginning of the experiment, the sample cell, the reference cell, and connections such as lines, ttings, and valves are evacuated from air by a vacuum. As seen in Figure 1, the sample and reference cells are separated by closing the shut-off valve V 1 . In the next step, the desired amount of gas is admitted to the reference cell by opening the gas access valves V 2 and V 4 . Desired pressure values in the reference cell are supplied by a syringe pump. After the desired pressure is achieved in the reference cell, valve V 2 is closed, and a certain time is allowed for pressure and temperature equilibrium in the reference cell. Using Anguss equation of state (EOS) for methane (CH 4 ), [24] the amount of moles of gas in the reference cell can be computed from pressure, temperature, and the volume of the reference cell. Then, valve V 1 between the reference and sample cells is opened. Adsorbate gas (CH 4 , 0.9999 g/g, 99.99 mass % purity) is admitted to the sample cell from the reference cell. Then adsorption starts, causing a decrease of pressure in the system. Until pressure equilibrium is satis ed, pressure and temperature values are recorded every 10 s both in the sample and reference cells. By measuring pressure values before and after expansion both in the sample and reference cells, gas molar densities at different stages are calculated using Angus EOS [24] and the amount of gas adsorbed at the applied pressure level is determined. The adsorption isotherm, a graph of adsorption capacity versus pressure at a constant temperature, is constructed by repeating these procedures until the measure- ment at the highest desired gas pressure is achieved (1380 kPa (200 psia) increments are generally preferred for adsorption at high pressures).

THEORY

Adsorption Calculation Procedure

Excess (Gibbs) adsorption is expressed in the following equa- tion: [12]

n

Gibbs

ads

¼ n inj n

Gibbs

unads

ð1Þ

The amount of gas injected from the reference cell to the sample cell can be determined using the following formula:

n inj ¼ V ref

RT

P ref 1 P ref 2

z ref 1

z ref 2

ð2Þ

1684

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1684 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

Figure 1 . Schematic diagram of the adsorption experimental apparatus. The amount of un-adsorbed gas

Figure 1 . Schematic diagram of the adsorption experimental apparatus.

The amount of un-adsorbed gas (free gas) in the sample cell at equilibrium pressure is calculated using the following formula:

n

Gibbs unads ¼ V void

RT

P

void 2

z

void2

ð3 Þ

To calculate absolute adsorption, the adsorbed density of gas is needed. When adsorption equilibrium pressure increases, the volume occupied by adsorbed gas increases. Therefore, this reduces void volume in the sample cell, causing excess calculation of free gas in the porous spaces of the sample cell because helium void volume, measured before the adsorption experiment, is used in adsorption calculations. If helium void volume is not corrected, adsorption capacity is calculated as lower than absolute adsorption, which is called excess (Gibbs) adsorption. [20] At lower pressures, the volume of adsorbed phase is negligible. Hence:

He void V unads

V

n

abs

ads ¼ n ads

Gibbs

¼

n inj r gas V He void

ð4

ð5

Þ

Þ

At higher pressures, the volume of adsorbed phase is signi cant:

He void ¼ V unads V ads

V

n

abs

ads ¼ n inj r gas V He

void r ads V ads

ð6

ð7

Þ

Þ

By combining the adsorption formulas above, the following formula is obtained for absolute adsorption:

n

abs

ads ¼

n

Gibbs

ads

1

r

r

gas

ads

ð8 Þ

Equations of State

Peng and Robinson equations of state (EOS) and other traditional equations of state are not highly accurate. When pressure increases, errors due to EOS calculations increase. Hence, more accurate equations of state, Angus s EOS for CH 4 [24] were used in this study to analyze experimental adsorption data. These equations are considered the most reliable equations of state. [24]

Adsorption Models

In this study, to evaluate raw experimental adsorption data, Langmuir isotherm and Ono-Kondo models (monolayer and three- layer) were preferred.

Langmuir isotherm

The Langmuir isotherm was proposed by Irving Langmuir in 1918. It is for gases adsorbed on solids. It is generally considered the simplest model. Langmuir made some assumptions to propose this model: [14]

1) The surface of an adsorbent is homogenous. This means that all the adsorption sites are energetically equivalent. 2) Adsorbed molecules do not interact with neighbouring adsorbed molecules. 3) Each site can hold one adsorbate molecule. 4) At the maximum adsorption, only a monolayer is formed.

The Langmuir equation describes the adsorption capacity of rock as pressure changes under isothermal conditions:

V ads ¼ V L P

P L þ P

ð9Þ

Ono-Kondo lattice model

Adsorption occurs in shale gas and coalbed methane reservoirs at high pressures. However, there are not enough studies and models to represent adsorption at high pressures, especially for shales.

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1685

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1685

The Langmuir isotherm is widely used but it is not suitable for especially high pressure adsorption. In the Langmuir isotherm, the volume of the adsorbed phase is ignored and there is no correction for adsorbed phase volume. Considering the drawbacks of adsorption models such as the Langmuir isotherm and other traditional methods, the Ono-Kondo lattice model is based on lattice theory and was proposed originally by Ono and Kondo in 1960 [11,20] and further developed by Donohue [11,20] and recently by Sudibandriyo. [20] In this model, the adsorption system is composed of layers of lattice cells that contain uid molecules and vacancies. For the case of adsorption, more uid molecules reside in the cells of the adsorbed-phase layers than in the cells of the bulk-phase layers. [21] The Ono-Kondo model has several advantages: [20,21]

1) It is used to describe multilayer adsorption. 2) It is able to describe adsorption behaviour based on the physical properties of the adsorbate and adsorbent. 3) It can estimate adsorbed-phase densities, which provide a calculation of absolute gas adsorption. 4) It can be used to incorporate accurate density calculations from EOS models, which reduce the correlative burden on the adsorption model.

In the Ono-Kondo model, the uid system consists of lattice cells occupied by uid molecules or just empty cells. When adsorption occurs, more molecules will occupy cells in the adsorbed-phase layer than the gas-phase (bulk). When equilibrium exists between the gas-phase and multilayer adsorbed phase, the expression for thermodynamic equilibrium for pure-component adsorption under the mean- eld approxima- tion can be written as follows: [20]

ln

x

t

ð Þ

1

x

b

þ z 0

ð x t x b

 

x

b

ð x

1

t

Þ

kT

Þe ii þ z 2 x t þ 1 2x t þ x t 1 Þe ii

ð

kT

¼ 0

ð 10Þ

For t ¼ 2, 3, layer:

ln

x

1

ð

1 x

b

Þ

x

b

ð

1 x

1

Þ

þ

, m, number of the layer, and for 1 st adsorbed

ð z 1 x 1 þ z 2 x 2 z 0 x b kT

Þe ii

þ kT ¼ 0

e

is

ð 11Þ

For a hexagonal con guration of lattice cells, the coordination numbers z 0 and z 1 are 8 and 6, respectively, and by de nition, z 2 ¼ (z 0 z 1 )/2. The analytical expression for the excess (Gibbs) adsorption from this model is as follows:

m

G ¼ C X ðÞ

x

t

x

b

t

ð 12Þ

where x t ¼ r t / r mc and x b ¼ r b / r mc To simplify the model, it is assumed that the adsorption occurs within a slit. For monolayer adsorption inside a slit, the equilibrium expression is written as follows:

ln

x

ads

ð

1 x

b

Þ

x

b

ð

1 x

ads

Þ

þ

ð

ð

z

1

þ 1Þx ads z 0 x b kT

Þe ii

þ kT ¼ 0

e

is

ð 13Þ

where z 1 ¼ 6 and z 0 ¼ 8 for the hexagonal lattice cell.

Excess (Gibbs) adsorption then simpli es to the following:

G ¼ 2C ð x

ads

x

b

Þ¼ 2C

r

ads

r

mc

r b

r

mc

ð14Þ

The parameters of the model r mc , e ii /k, e is /k, and C are obtained by tting the model with experimental adsorption isotherm data. The parameters are t when the average absolute percent deviation (AAD) in each isotherm is at a minimum. The AAD is calculated using the following equation:

N

ADD ¼ X

i

n exp n model

n

exp

100 %

ð15Þ

The uid-uid energy parameter, e ii /k, is estimated as being proportional to the Lennard-Jones well depth energy parameter. [20] The following estimate for the uid-uid energy parameter is used in the Ono-Kondo model:

e ii ¼ 0: 432 e

ð16Þ

Two-Parameter Ono-Kondo Model

For the two-parameter Ono-Kondo model, the uid-solid energy parameter, e is /k, is regressed for each speci c adsorption system, and the parameter C is regressed for each adsorption isotherm using experimental adsorption data. Hence, it is called the two- parameter Ono-Kondo model. [20] In this study, the two-parameter Ono-Kondo model was preferred to evaluate experimental adsorption data for both Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer

models. A MATLAB program for the Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer models was written in this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Verification of Adsorption Experiments and Models

Before carrying out the CH 4 adsorption experiments on the shale

sample, it is very important to prove the reliability of the adsorption experiments and calculation procedures. In this study, BPL activated carbon was used for this purpose by following Reich et al. s [25] experimental procedure. In Runs #1 and #2, CH 4 adsorption experiments on BPL at 28.3 8C were performed. In Lancaster et al., [2] the adsorption isotherm experiments on Antrim Shale were conducted by different laboratories and their results were compared. However, different results were obtained due to different sample treatments, calibration mistakes in pressure transducers and thermocouples, and mistakes in adsorption calculations. To avoid similar mistakes, BPL activated carbon was used in this study. In the literature, several experimental data sets of BPL-activated carbon are available. Figure 2 shows the experimental results of Run #1, Run #2, and Reich et al.s [25] results. As can be seen, all adsorption isotherms agree closely. Therefore, it can be concluded that the experimental setup and calculation procedure used in this study are suitable for adsorption experiments.

In this study, to evaluate raw experimental adsorption data, Langmuir isotherm and Ono-Kondo models (monolayer and three-layer) were used. An algorithm was written for the Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer models using MATLAB

1686

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1686 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

Figure 2 . Comparison of CH 4 adsorption isotherms on BPL for Reich et al.'s

Figure 2 . Comparison of CH 4 adsorption isotherms on BPL for Reich et al.'s [25] adsorption experiments and Runs #1 and #2.

to nd the adsorbed phase densities at different layers, surface areas, [19] and Ono-Kondo model parameters. The written algo- rithm is checked using Sudibandriyo et al.s [20] experimental CH 4 adsorption results for BPL. As shown in Table 1, the model parameters in this study and Sudibandriyo et al.s [20] study were compared. The values of the model parameters are quite close to each other. Small differences in the results are due to different initial guesses and different regression methods used.

CH 4 Adsorption Isotherms

Before carrying out CH 4 adsorption experiments on the shale sample, the data in Table 2 were obtained and used for adsorption calculations. In Figure 3, CH 4 adsorption isotherms of the shale sample at 25 8C (Run #3), 50 8C (Run #5), and 75 8C (Run #6) are shown. As seen in Figure 3, adsorption capacities of CH 4 on the shale sample decrease with increasing temperature, as expected. It is known that adsorption is exothermic, because heat is released as new bonds form. [14] Hence, the bonds between adsorbate (CH 4 ) and adsorbent (shale sample) are weakened and desorption occurs when temperature increases. The adsorption capacities increase linearly with pressure in Figure 2. However, after certain pressures, this increase stops and there is even a small decrease in the adsorption capacities. Shales have nano-porous structures in the shale matrix, so they have molecular diameters of pore dimensions. Therefore, there are potential forces from the neighbouring walls of the pores. These forces increase the interaction energy between the shale sample surface and CH 4 molecules, which causes an increase in adsorption and may cause complete lling of pores at low pressures. This is a typical behaviour of a Type I adsorption isotherm which depicts monolayer adsorption on the adsorbent surface. [14] Hence, after lling nearly all pores, at high pressures, adsorption becomes almost stable. This indicates that pore sizes and surface area are important for adsorption capacities and behaviours. Run #3 was conducted again to check the repeatability of the experiments in this study. As shown in Figure 4, CH 4 adsorption experiments conducted at the same conditions for Runs #3 and #4 at 25 8C show that adsorption experiments in this study were repeatable.

Evaluation of Experimental CH 4 Adsorption Experimental Data using Langmuir Isotherm and Ono-Kondo Models

After obtaining adsorption isotherms with the help of the experiments, it is very important to t the data to adsorption

Table 1. Comparision of Ono-Kondo monolayer and three-layer model results

Model

Parameters Monolayer Three-layer

Model in this study

%AAD e fs /k (K)

0.8

2.9

1381

1721

 

C

(mmol/g) %AAD e fs /k (K)

3.14

4.34

Model in Sudibandriyo et al.'s [20] study

0.6

2.8

1385

1690

 

C

(mmol/g)

3.26

4.53

Table 2 . Experimental data for the adsorption experiments with Dadas shale sample

Parameters

Runs #3, #4, #5, #6

Reference cell volume Sample mass Sample cell volume (empty) Mesh size of the sample Average void volume in the sample cell

44.3 cm 3 121.7 g 122.4 cm 3 (20/35) or 841 500 mm 58.61 cm 3

models. As seen in Figure 5, experimental CH 4 adsorption data from shale samples at 25, 50, and 75 8C were tted well by the Langmuir isotherm and Ono-Kondo models. The parameters of these models are listed in Tables 34. As seen in Table 4, model parameters of the Ono-Kondo three-layer model are close to the parameters of the Ono-Kondo monolayer model. Small differences in adsorption parameters for the Ono-Kondo models are mostly related to the regression model used in the program, and differences in initial guesses of uid-solid energy parameters. Adsorption occurred as a monolayer in Runs #3, #5, and #6 because the rst layers adsorbed densities are higher than the bulk phase densities of CH 4 . However, the second and third layer s adsorbed densities are close to CH 4 gas densities. This means that adsorption occurred as a monolayer in Runs #3, #5, and #6. It is also known that the Type I adsorption isotherm happens as a monolayer because of microporous structure. [14] This supports the results of the Ono-Kondo models in this study.

supports the results of the Ono-Kondo models in this study. Figure 3 . Comparison of CH

Figure 3 . Comparison of CH 4 adsorption isotherms of Dadas shale sample for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1687

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1687

Figure 4 . Comparison of CH 4 adsorption isotherms of Dadas shale sample for Runs

Figure 4 . Comparison of CH 4 adsorption isotherms of Dadas shale sample for Runs #3 and #4.

Adsorption is expected to occur as a monolayer because of the small molecule sizes of shale samples in pore networks. Therefore, for evaluating the adsorption data of shale samples, the Ono-Kondo monolayer model is sufcient and there is no need to use the Ono-Kondo three-layer model. Another advantage of Ono-Kondo models is the prediction of the surface area of shale samples. As shown in Table 4, the surface area values of shale samples at 25, 50, and 75 8C are between 13.37616.070 m 2 /g by applying the method of Sudibandriyo. [19] Therefore, Ono-Kondo models are capable of approximately predicting the surface area of shale samples with their experimental adsorption data. The adsorption capacity is calculated by ignoring the volume of the adsorbed gas on the surface of the adsorbent; this is called excess or Gibbs adsorption. After getting the results of excess (Gibbs) adsorption capacities from the experiments, especially at high pressures, it is very important to make void volume corrections in order to calculate absolute adsorption. In adsorp- tion, adsorbed molecules form a layer on the adsorbent. At low pressures, the volume of the adsorbed layer is negligible. However, with increasing pressure, the volume of the adsorbed layer becomes important. The Langmuir model is not capable of calculating the volume of the adsorbed layer using adsorbed phase

the volume of the adsorbed layer using adsorbed phase Figure 5 . Comparision of CH 4

Figure 5. Comparision of CH 4 excess adsorption data and adsorption model predictions for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

Table 3 . Langmuir isotherm parameters for Runs #3, #5, and #6

Model parameters Run #3 (25 8C) Run #5 (50 8C) Run #6 (75 8 C)

V L (mmol/g)

0.0545

0.0463

0.0293

P L (psia (MPa))

387.9 (2.67)

965 (6.65)

992 (6.84)

R 2

0.995

0.996

0.994

densities. In contrast, using adsorbed phase densities obtained with the Ono-Kondo monolayer model, excess adsorption values can be corrected for absolute adsorption. In Figure 6, absolute adsorption values are shown for each pressure value after correction. As seen in Figure 6, there are signi cant differences between absolute adsorption and excess adsorption for all temperatures, indicating the high capability of Ono-Kondo models compared to the Langmuir isotherm.

Initial Gas-in-Place Calculations in Shale Gas Reservoirs

Shale gas reservoirs are classied as unconventional reserves. Hence, initial gas-in-place calculation equations for conventional reserves cannot be used for shale gas reservoirs. Ambrose et al. [22] proposed a new technique to calculate shale gas-in-place. However, in Ambrose et al. s [22] equations, only Langmuir isotherm parameters are used, and volume occupied by adsorbed gas molecules is ignored. In this study, in addition to the Langmuir isotherm, Ono-Kondo models were used to evaluate experimental adsorption data. Hence, modications were made to Ambrose et al.s [22] shale gas-in-place calculations to take into account the volume of adsorbed gas on the surface of the adsorbent in this study. Ambrose et al.s [22] initial shale gas-in-place formula is given as follows:

^

G st ¼ 32 : 0368 f 1 S

þ

B

g

G

sL

P

r

rock

w

"

ð

Þ

1 :318 10 M

6

r

s

P þ P L

G

sL

P

P þ

P

L

#

ð17Þ

Instead of the adsorbed gas amount calculated by the Langmuir isotherm as used in Equation (17), the Ono-Kondo monolayer model parameters (Equation (18)) were preferred to calculate adsorption capacity, as it was indicated that adsorption occurs as a monolayer in shale gas reservoirs.

G a ¼ G sL

P

P þ P L

! G a ¼ 1518 C

r

ads

r

mc

r gas

r

mc

ð18Þ

The initial shale gas-in-place calculation formula (Equa- tion (19)) is obtained using the Ono-Kondo monolayer model by inserting Equation (18) into Equation (17):

^

G st ¼ 32 : 0368 f 1 S

B

g

r

r

rock

ads

r

mc

w

r gas

r

mc

"

ð

Þ

2 :001 10 M

3

r

ads

þ 1518 C

C

r

ads

r

mc

r

gas

r

mc

#

ð19Þ

In both Ambrose s equation (Equation (17)) [22] and the modied equation (Equation (19)), the volume occupied by the adsorbed phase is ignored. Especially at high pressures, the

1688

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1688 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

Table 4 . Ono-Kondo (OK) model parameters for Runs #3, #5, and #6

Run #3 (25 8C)

Run #5 (50 8C)

Run #6 (75 8C)

Model

OK monolayer

OK three-layer

OK monolayer

OK three-layer

OK monolayer

OK three-layer

parameters

model

model

model

model

model

model

%AAD e fs /k (K) C (mmol/g)

2.406

2.741

2.177

2.025

4.268

4.093

785

765

540

540

490

490

0.0489

0.0496

0.0523

0.0506

0.0408

0.0403

Surface area

14.398

14.627

16.070

15.835

13.550

13.376

(m 2 /g)

volume occupied by the adsorbed phase becomes important. Hence, in the following equations (Equations (2021)), a correction was done using adsorbed phase density to consider the volume occupied by the adsorbed gas. Excess (Gibbs) adsorption in Equation (18) was converted to absolute adsorption for the Ono-Kondo monolayer model by Equation (20).

G a absolute ¼ 1518C

r

r

gas

r

r gas ! ! G a absolute

ads

ads

r

mc

r

mc

r ads

¼ 1518 C

r

ads

r

mc

ð20 Þ

Then, Equation (20) was inserted into Equation (17) to obtain the corrected form of the shale gas-in-place equation (Equa- tion (21)) which accounts for absolute adsorption.

^

G st ¼ 32 : 0368 f 1 S

B

g

r

r

rock

ads

r

mc

w

r gas

r

mc

"

ð

Þ

2: 001 10 MC

3

#

r

mc

þ 1518C

ð21 Þ

For the shale gas reservoir, the data in Table 5 were used for initial gas-in-place calculations for 25, 50, and 75 8C. Initial gas-in- place calculations done without considering the volume of adsorbed gas (excess adsorption) using Ambroses equation

gas (excess adsorption) using Ambrose ’ s equation Figure 6 . Comparison of CH 4 excess

Figure 6 . Comparison of CH 4 excess adsorption data and absolute adsorption data for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

(Equation (17)) [22] and modied Equation (19) gave similar results, as seen in Figure 7. However, to correct the volume of gas adsorbed in the experiments, Equation (21) was used for initial gas-in-place

calculations (Figure 8). As seen in Figure 9 at 75 8 C, between

3447 34 470 kPa (500 5000 psia), the adsorbed gas percentage

calculated by Equation (21) changes from 41.6 % to 26.9 % for the shale reservoir. The results show that the adsorbed gas

percentages using Equation (21) are 1.32.4 times higher than the values calculated by Equation (17). Similar differences were obtained for 25 and 50 8C. These differences are quite large. Therefore, the correction in Equation (21) for absolute adsorption can be suggested for the most accurate shale gas-in-place calculations. For the exact initial gas-in-place calculations, accurate experi- mental adsorption data are needed at different pressures. Although the Langmuir isotherm is commonly used in the experimental adsorption data evaluation, such as in the study of Heller &

Zoback, [10] adsorption is calculated lower than its actual value due to ignoring the volume of adsorbed gas. In this and similar

studies, [19,20,21] it was shown that the Ono-Kondo monolayer model is useful for predicting the volume of adsorbed gas, and by using this value, absolute adsorption is calculated. For example, using the experimental adsorption data of Heller & Zoback, [10] the absolute adsorption is calculated by applying Ono-Kondo

models. When Langmuir isotherm parameters are used for initial gas-in-place calculations as in Equation (17), the adsorbed amount of gas is calculated lower than its actual value and the free gas amount is calculated higher than its actual value at reservoir conditions. Therefore, it is important to nd the density of adsorbed gas on the layer of shale. In Hartmann et al., [18] the pore structure and density of adsorbed gas were measured using a scanning electron microscope, and then the volume of adsorbed gas was considered in the initial gas-in-place calcu- lations. In contrast, in this study, the density of adsorbed gas is

Table 5 . Properties of Dadas shale sample at different temperatures

Run #3

Run #5

Run #6

(25 8C)

(50 8C)

(75 8C)

w, fraction

0.06

0.06

0.06

S w , fraction

0.35

0.35

0.35

r b (g/cm 3)

2.06

2.06

2.06

C (mmol/g)

0.0489

0.0523

0.0408

P L (psia (MPa)) 387.9 (2.67)

965 (6.65)

992 (6.84)

G sL (V L ) 41.37 scf/ton

35.14 scf/ton

22.24 scf/ton

(0.0545 mmol/g)

(0.0463 mmol/g)

(0.0293 mmol/g)

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1689

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1689

Figure 7 . Shale gas-in place calculations by Equations (17) and (19) for Runs #3,

Figure 7. Shale gas-in place calculations by Equations (17) and (19) for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

by Equations (17) and (19) for Runs #3, #5, and #6. Figure 8 . Shale gas-in

Figure 8 . Shale gas-in place calculations by Equation (21) for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

place calculations by Equation (21) for Runs #3, #5, and #6. Figure 9 . Adsorbed gas

Figure 9. Adsorbed gas (CH 4 ) percentages for shale gas reservoir for Runs #3, #5, and #6.

predicted using Ono-Kondo models and experimental adsorption data as well as Ono-Kondo model parameters C and e fs /k. These parameters are used in Equation (21) (found and proposed in this study) for initial gas-in-place calculation at reservoir conditions. Then, with only adsorption experimental data and reservoir temperature, the amounts of adsorbed and free gas are calculated at different pressures. Different from other studies, [9,10,18,22] the surface areas of shale samples are approximated using Ono-Kondo models.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, experiments were performed to investigate adsorption capacities and behaviours of shale samples for initial shale gas-in-place calculations. Adsorption experiments of CH 4 were conducted at 25, 50, and 75 8C up to 13 790 kPa (2000 psia). It was observed that increasing temperature decreases adsorption capacity. Hence, the effect of temperature is important for adsorption. As seen in adsorption isotherms, as pressure increases, adsorption capacity increases until the complete lling of pores on the adsorbate. For desorption, it was observed that when pressure decreases, most of the desorption happens immediately because of the high interconnectivity of samples in the sample cell. Therefore, it can be concluded that pressure and temperature are determining factors for adsorption capacities and behaviours. Ono-Kondo and Langmuir equations are capable of modelling adsorption isotherms both at high and low pressures. However, Ono-Kondo models differ from the Langmuir model, as can be evaluated for different layers of adsorption. In this study, the Ono-Kondo monolayer and Ono-Kondo three-layer models were used and compared. By using experimental data with the prepared algorithm which uses the Ono-Kondo model, it was found that adsorption for the shale sample occurs as a monolayer, as expected, because of nano-porous structures of shale gas reservoirs. It was also seen that the shale sample s adsorption curve ts with the Type I isotherm curve, which generally occurs in monolayer adsorption. Hence, for shale gas reservoirs, the Ono-Kondo monolayer model ts adsorption data sufciently closely, and there is no need to use the Ono-Kondo three-layer model. Both the Ono-Kondo monolayer model and Langmuir model can be used to calculate excess (Gibbs) adsorption without accounting for the volume of the adsorbed phase. However, as pressure increases, the volume of the adsorbed phase becomes important for adsorbed gas and free gas calculations. The adsorbed phase densities cannot be calculated using the Langmuir model. Hence, Ono-Kondo models are capable of calculating absolute adsorption by correcting excess (Gibbs) adsorption values, since they can be used to calculate adsorbed density values. Shale gas-in-place equations proposed by Ambrose et al. [22] were modi ed for the Ono-Kondo monolayer model with and without considering the volume of adsorbed gas. The original equation with the Langmuir model and modi ed equation with the Ono-Kondo monolayer model resulted in similar excess adsorption data. In contrast, when the volume of adsorbed gas is considered in the nal form of the initial gas-in-place equation (Equation (21)), the adsorbed gas amount was calculated to be higher than that from previous equations. Moreover, with Equation (21), the free gas amount was calculated to be lower than that from previous equations. The exact prediction of adsorbed and free gas amounts in shale gas reservoirs is quite

1690

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1690 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

important for reservoir management studies. Therefore, the modied equation including the volume of adsorbed gas correction (Equation (21)) in this study is suggested for shale gas-in-place calculations. By using this equation and the Ono-Kondo monolayer model parameters of experimental adsorption data, the adsorbed and free gas amounts at initial conditions and different production pressures can be calculated. The parameters of the Ono-Kondo monolayer can be used in shale gas reservoir simulators. As well as gas-in-place calculations, free gas amounts in pores at different production pressures are important for diffusivity equations during the simulation of gas production from shale gas reservoirs.

NOMENCLATURE

B g

pre-factor related to capacity of the adsorbent for a specific gas (mmol/g) fluid-fluid interaction energy fluid-solid surface interaction energy well depth of the potential

e e is or e fs e

G a gas adsorbed on the surface (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton

(scf/ton)) absolute gas adsorbed on the surface (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton (scf/ton)) Langmuir volume (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton (scf/ton)) total gas-in-place (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton (scf/ton))

G

G

G

C

gas formation volume factor

ii

a_absolute

sL

st

k

Boltzman s constant

m

maximum number of adsorbed layers in an

adsorption isotherm

^

M

apparent natural gas molecular mass (g/mol)

or G excess (Gibbs) adsorption amount (mmol/g) free gas amount (mmol/g) injected gas amount from reference cell to sample cell (mmol/g) amount of free gas in the sample (mmol/g) absolute adsorption (mmol/g)

n

n

n exp adsorption capacity of the experimental data

(mmol/g) adsorption capacity calculated from the model (mmol/g)

pressure (6.894 757 kPa (psia)) Langmuir pressure (6.894 757 kPa (psia)) pressure of the reference cell before expansion (6.894 757 kPa (psia)) pressure of the reference cell after expansion (6.894 757 kPa (psia)) pressure in the void volume of the sample cell after expansion (6.894 757 kPa (psia))

n

n

n

Gibbs

n ads

Gibbs

unads

inj

unads

abs

ads

model

P

P

P

P

P

L

ref1

ref2

void2

R

universal gas constant

F

porosity fraction

ads

b

rock

gas

s

r

S w

T

V

V

V

t

ref

He

void

unads

r

r

r

r

adsorbed-phase density at different pressure (g/cm 3 ) r mc adsorbed-phase density corresponding to maxi- mum adsorption capacity (g/cm 3 ) adsorbed density of the adsorbate at layer t

r

adsorbed gas density (g/cm 3 ) bulk density of the adsorbate at layer t (g/cm 3 ) bulk-rock density (g/cm 3 ) free-gas-phase density (g/cm 3 )

water saturation

absolute temperature volume of the reference cell (cm 3 ) helium void volume in the sample cell (cm 3 ) volume of un-adsorbed gas in sample cell (cm 3 )

V ads gas volume that can be adsorbed by a rock of unit mass (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton (scf/ton)) V L Langmuir volume, maximum gas volume that can be adsorbed (0.028 316 85 m 3 STP /ton (scf/ton)) x t reduced density or fraction of sites occupied by adsorbed molecules in layer t fraction of sites occupied by fluid molecules in the bulk fraction of r ads to r ads compressibility factor of gas in the reference cell before expansion compressibility factor of gas in the reference cell after expansion compressibility factor of gas in the void spaces of the sample cell after expansion

x

x

b

ads

z

z

z

ref1

ref2

void2

REFERENCES

[1] Energy Information Administration (EIA), Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries outside the United States, EIA , 2013 , accessed on 24 October 2015, http://www.eia.gov/analysis/ studies/worldshalegas/pdf/ overview.pdf. [2] D. E. Lancaster, S. A. Holditch, D. G. Hill, A Multi- Laboratory Comparison of Isotherm Measurements on Antrim Shale Samples, Otsego County, MI, Society of Core Analysts Conference , Houston, 911 August 1993 . [3] S. B. Velanki, Adsorption of Binary Gas Mixtures on Wet Fruitland Coal and Compressibility Factor Predictions , MSc thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 1995.

[4] C. L. Cipolla, E. P. Lolon, J. C. Erdle, B. Rubin, Reservoir Modelling in Shale Gas Reservoirs, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, 2325 September 2009 . [5] M. V. Kok, S. Merey, Energ. Source. Part A 2014, 36,

2492.

[6] C. Boyer, B. Clark, V. Jochen, R. Lewis, C. K. Miller, Oil eld Rev . 2011 , 23, 28.

[7] P. Chareonsuppanimit, S. A. Mohammad, R. L. Robinson, K. A. M. Gasem, Int. J. Coal Geol. 2012, 95, 34.

[8] X. Lu, F. C. Li, A. T. Watson, Adsorption studies of natural gas storage in Devonian Shales,SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October

1993 . [9] R. J. Heller, M. D. Zoback, Adsorption, Swelling and Viscous Creep of Synthetic Clay Samples, 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium , ARMA, San Francisco, 2629 June 2011 . [10] R. Heller, M. Zoback, Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources 2014 , 8, 14.

[11] S. Merey, Experimental Analysis of Adsorption Capacities and Behaviors of Shale Samples , MSc thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 2013. [12] S. A. Mohammad, J. Fitzgerald, R. L. Robinson, K. A. M. Gasem, Energ. Fuel . 2009 , 23, 2810. [13] M. Sudibandriyo, Z. Pan, J. E. Fitzgerald, R. L. Robinson, K. A. M. Gasem, Langmuir 2003, 19, 5323. [14] D. M. Ruthven, Principles of Adsorption and Adsorption Processes , John Wiley & Sons, New York 1984 . [15] H. Haiya, Chinese Journal of Geochemistry 2014 , 33 , 425.

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1691

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1691

[16] A. Leahy-Dios, M. Das, A. Agarwal, R. D. Kaminsky, Modeling of Transport Phenomena and Multicomponent Sorption for Shale Gas and Coalbed Methane in an Unstructured Grid Simulator,SPE Annual Technical Confer- ence and Exhibition , Denver, 30 October 2 November 2011 .

[17] G. Feast, K. Wu, J. Walton, Z. Cheng, B. Chen, International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy 2015 , 4 , 23. [18] R. C. Hartman, R. J. Ambrose, I. Y. Akkutlu, C. R. Clarkson, Shale Gas-in-Place Calculations Part II Multicomponent Gas Adsorption Effects,North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition , the Woodlands, 14 16 June

2011.

[19] M. Sudibandriyo, Jurnal Makara seri Teknologi 2010, 14 , 1. [20] M. Sudibandriyo, S. A. Mohammad, R. L. J. Robinson, K. A.

M. Gasem, Fluid Phase Equilibr . 2010, 299 , 238.

[21] M. Sudibandriyo, S. A. Mohammad, R. L. J. Robinson, K. A.

M. Gasem, Energ. Fuel. 2011, 25, 3355.

[22] R. J. Ambrose, R. C. Hartman, M. D. Campos, Y. I. Akkutlu,

C. H. Sondergeld, Shale Gas-in-Place Calculations Part I:

New Pore-Scale Considerations,SPE Unconventional Gas Conference , Pittsburgh, 23 25 February 2010. [23] Calgon Carbon, BPL 4 6 Granular Activated Carbon,2015, accessed on 23 October 2015, http://www.calgoncarbon.com/

[24] S. Angus, B. Armstrong, K. M. de Reuck, International Thermodynamic Tables of the Fluid State5: Methane, Pergamon Press, New York 1978. [25] R. Reich, W. T. Ziegler, K. A. Rogers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. D. D . 1980 , 19, 336.

Manuscript received July 30, 2015; revised manuscript received November 30, 2015; accepted for publication December 7, 2015.

1692

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

1692 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016

VOLUME 94, SEPTEMBER 2016