Article

pubs.acs.org/EF

General Gas Permeability Model for Porous Media: Bridging the Gaps
Between Conventional and Unconventional Natural Gas Reservoirs
Peng Cao,*,† Jishan Liu,†,‡ and Yee-Kwong Leong†
†
School of Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Perth, WA 6009,
Australia
‡
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Wuhan 430071, PR China

ABSTRACT: Many field observations have indicated that permeabilities of both conventional and unconventional gas reservoirs
are not constant when gas pressure drops. For conventional reservoirs, permeability will decrease while for unconventional gas
rocks, the apparent permeability may increase as gas pressure decreases to a lower magnitude. Evolution trends of permeability
for different natural gas reservoirs are distinct. These differences are observed by laboratory experiments of sandstones, coals, or
shales. In this study, we present a general permeability model to bridge the gaps between conventional and unconventional gas
Downloaded by STANFORD UNIV at 12:56:23:237 on July 05, 2019

reservoirs. This model coupled three critical factors namely effective stress, adsorption, and flow regimes to reflect dynamic
from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683.

performances of permeability. On the basis of specific reservoirs properties, the model degenerates into four reduced types. The
first reduced model is applicable for reservoirs with lower adsorption capacity. The second reduced model is adopted by
unconventional reservoirs like coal seams when the intrinsic permeability is big and adsorption capacity is high. For the third
reduced model, effective stress is the dominating factor for permeability evolution, which means that it is applicable for
conventional reservoirs like sandstones. Unconventional gas reservoirs with low adsorption capacity like gas shales can apply the
fourth reduced model because the flow regimes dominate the evolution. These reduced models are verified against the
experimental data. Results show that effective stress is the main reason for the change of permeability for conventional gas
reservoirs. Both effective stress and flow regimes together determine the apparent permeability of unconventional gas reservoirs.
The impact of adsorption on permeability is relatively small. Permeability evolution trends can be classified into different zones
for conventional and unconventional gas reservoirs. When the gas is depleted from reservoirs, the gas permeability has two
bounds. For the upper bound, permeability is only affected by flow regimes and the apparent permeability will increase when gas
pressure drops. For the lower bound, permeability is only affected by effective stress and the apparent permeability will decrease
when the gas is depleted from the reservoirs.

1. INTRODUCTION observations support this idea.8−11 These models have analyzed

Permeability is a critical property of natural gas production
from both conventional and unconventional gas reservoirs.
Unconventional natural gas reservoirs are fine grained
compacted sediments with very low permeability,1 and they
are porous media with permeability below 1 millidarcy (mD).
Most of the pores in unconventional gas reservoirs like shales
and coals have diameters between 4 and 200 nm. The
permeabilities of conventional gas reservoirs like sandstones are
greater than 1 mD. Some scholars have pointed out that it is the
matrix properties that dominate the gas production perform-
ance over longer periods of time.2 Thus, the evolution of
permeability for conventional and unconventional reservoirs is
very significant.
In recent decades, many scholars have investigated the
evolution of permeability for natural gas reservoirs when gas
depletes from sandstones or shales. Some researchers observed
that the permeability of the core sample would be changed
when gas pressure or confinement pressure changed in the
experiments.2−4 Generally, the gas pressure will decrease after
production and this will change the effective stress. Many
scholars have conducted experiments to study the effects of
stress on permeability.5−7 It is well understood that gas
permeability depends on effective stress and many experimental
the importance of stress on permeability for tight rock
especially during the gas depletion process as shown in Figure
1. According to the poroelasticity theory, when the effective
stress increases, the porosity will be reduced because of the
compaction of pores and grains. Variation of effective stress can
affect the average pore radius and intrinsic permeability for gas
reservoirs. However, for gas permeability of shales, a lot of
experiments show that permeability will undergo an increasing
trend when the gas pressure drops. For the same conditions,
the gas permeability of conventional gas reservoirs should
decrease. Thus, there is a gap between the dynamic behaviors
for gas permeability between conventional gas rocks and
unconventional gas rocks.
For unconventional gas reservoirs, the evolution of
permeability is more complex. The models above did not
consider the effects of flow regime and adsorption on
permeability, which will underestimate the real permeability
of ultralow permeability sediments. Flow regimes will play an
important role in the apparent permeability for unconventional
Received: March 23, 2016
Revised: May 24, 2016
Published: June 26, 2016

© 2016 American Chemical Society 5492 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683

Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
Figure 1. Schematic of impacts of stress, flow regime, and adsorption on the apparent permeability.
gas reservoirs. In terms of the flow regime, it is related to one
dimensionless parameter Knudsen number. For the traditional
Darcy law, it is applicable that permeability is big and the
Knudsen number is less than 0.01. But this condition is
impossible for unconventional natural gas reservoirs. For
example, for gas shale reservoirs, the pores are concentrated
within several nanometers to hundreds nanometers, which
means the Knudsen number is over 0.01 and the flow regime
belongs to the slip flow.
It is acceptable that permeability of gas flow is bigger than
that of liquid flow in the same porous media especially for tight
porous media.12−14 The apparent permeability is bigger than
the intrinsic permeability for porous media because of slippage
effect (flow regimes). There is a close relationship between
intrinsic permeability and apparent permeability.15,16 Many
scholars established apparent permeability models to reflect this
effect by adding slippage factor to Darcy’s equation, which
called Klinkenberg-corrected permeability model.3,17−20 Be-
sides, many researchers thought flow regime like Knudsen
diffusion will play a more important role in apparent
permeability and adopted Knudsen number to represent the
flow regime. Based on this theory, a lot of Knudsen number-
corrected permeability models have been developed.16,21
Additionally, some scholars have proposed several apparent
permeability models based on the idea that slip flow and
Knudsen diffusion together lead to the apparent permeability
for shales, which means slip flow can appear independently
without considering the diffusion.22−24
These models have good agreements with experiments for
porous media with nanopores or microchannels under different
fluids conditions like helium, methane, water, and decane. They
focus on the variation of apparent permeability when using
different fluids under the same confining pressure conditions.25
Based on these studies, it is easy to understand the impacts of
flow regimes on the apparent permeability compared to the
intrinsic or absolute permeability. However, for these
permeability models, there is a common assumption or
experimental condition that the stress for shale solid is
5493
Article
unchanged, which is impossible in the real process of gas
production. This assumption is another gap between conven-
tional gas reservoirs and unconventional gas reservoirs. On the
other hand, adsorption phenomenon has two effects on gas
reservoirs. First, the adsorption induced swelling can change the
effective stress. When adsorbed gas injects into porous media, it
will induce the swelling of the matrix and both the volumes of
pores and grains will be changed. If it is under the free swelling
condition, the effective stress is a constant and intrinsic
permeability is unchangeable. However, if the boundary is fixed,
the swelling will increase the stress and compact the pores,
which leads to increase of effective stress and decrease of
intrinsic permeability. Some scholars presented different
models to reflect the impact of adsorption on permeabil-
ity.26−28 Second, the adsorption will occupy the space of the
pores, which can decrease the permeability. The adsorption on
the surface of pores can reduce the porosity within the
connected pores network, which means that the average pore
radius should deduct the adsorption layer thickness29 as shown
in Figure 2. When the pores of gas reservoirs are very small
(less than 50 nm), the thickness of the adsorption layer should
be taken into account.
Overall, there are three main factors namely effective stress,
adsorption and flow regime that affecting permeability of gas
reservoirs as shown in Figure 1. Until now, all of these physical
Figure 2. Difference between average pore radius and effective pore
radius from adsorption effect.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels Article

processes have been investigated individually, but little work ⎛ p ⎞

has been done to study the dynamic interactions of apparent σ ̅ − p = −K ⎜εv + − εs⎟
permeability with respect to effective stress, adsorption, and ⎝ Ks ⎠ (5)
flow regime. But for one specific gas reservoir, the importance The porosity is calculated as a function of shale mechanical
for permeability from these factors is different. We present a properties such as Young’s modulus and pore pressure. The
general permeability model to contain all the three factors, and following formulation is widely applied to describe the intrinsic
this model will bridge the gaps between conventional and permeability change with respect to porosity change in gas
unconventional gas reservoirs. In summary, the effective stress reservoirs like shale and coal.27
can change the intrinsic permeability and average pore radius,
and the flow regimes can change the apparent permeability. k∞ ⎛ ϕ ⎞3
The adsorption effect can change the intrinsic permeability and = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
porosity.4,15,30−32 k∞ 0 ⎝ ϕ0 ⎠ (6)
where k∞ denotes the intrinsic permeability and the subscript 0
2. GENERAL GAS PERMEABILITY MODEL refers to the initial value. It is noticeable that there are many
2.1. Formulation for Intrinsic Permeability. All the other intrinsic permeability and porosity relations with different
following formulations are derived from the assumptions: (a) forms. But this model is more applicable for gas reservoirs.
Gas contained within the pores of porous media is ideal. (b) 2.2. Formulation for Effects of Adsorption. The effect
Porous media is saturated by gas. (c) Porous media is a of adsorption on the intrinsic permeability is reflected on the
homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic continuum. For a constitutive equation of the matrix deformation. Also, there is
homogeneous and isotropic porous medium, the gas another impact that adsorption layer thickness will reduce the
sorption-induced strain εs is presumed to result in volumetric average pore radius and intrinsic permeability. To some extent,
strain only. The effects for the three normal components of the average pore radius r should be calculated based on the
strain are the same. According to poroelasticity theory14,33 and geometry relationship. Based on eq 4, it yields that
by making an analogy between thermal contraction and matrix
⎛⎛ ⎞
shrinkage, the constitutive relation for porous media becomes 1 1 ⎞⎟
r = r0exp⎜⎜⎜⎜ − [σ − σ − ( p − p )]⎟
K p ⎟⎠ 0 ⎟
̅ 0̅
1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ α ε ⎝⎝ K ⎠ (7)
εij = σij − ⎜ − ⎟σ δ + pδij + s δij
2G ⎝ 6G 9K ⎠
kk ij
3K 3 (1) The thickness of the adsorption layer can be defined as
where σij represents the component of the total stress tensor p
dads = Dgas
and εij denotes the component of total strain tensor, G = E/2(1 p + PL (8)
+ ν), K = E/3(1 − 2ν), α = 1 − K/Ks, and σkk = σ11 + σ22 + σ33,
K is the bulk modulus of shale, Ks is the bulk modulus of shale When dads is the equivalent thickness of the adsorption layer,
grains, G is the shear modulus of shale, E is the Young’s which occupies the porosity and reduces the effective pore
modulus of shale rock, ν denotes the Possion’s ratio, α is the radius; Dgas is the diameter of the adsorption gas molecule.
Biot coefficient, δij is the Kronecker delta, and p is the gas Thus, the effective pore radius for gas flow will be
pressure within the matrix. From eq 1, we obtain re = r − dads (9)
1 3
According to the study of other researchers, the effective
εv = − (σ ̅ − αp) + εs
K (2) intrinsic permeability can be described as
where εν = ε11 + ε22 + ε33 denotes the volumetric strain of re 2 ϕ
porous media and σ̅ = −σkk/3 represents the mean compressive k∞ e =
8 τ (10)
stress. The compressive pressure σij in this domain is negative.
The sorption-induced volumetric strain εs is fitted onto 2.3. Knudsen Number and Flow Regimes. The
Langmuir-type curve and has been verified through experi- microporous fabric with pores or pore-throats in the nanometer
ments.34 A Langmuir-type equation is used to calculate this size range of shale causes coexisting gas flow regimes
volumetric strain, defined as (continuum flow, slip flow, transitional flow and Knudsen
flow). In most cases, the gas permeability is higher than that of
εLp liquid permeability. The effect of gas slippage is more
εs =
PL + p (3) pronounced for gas reservoirs when the Knudsen number is
over 0.1. The Knudsen number, a dimensionless parameter, is
where εL is a constant representing the maximum volumetric commonly used to classify flow regime in small pores within
strain for porous media and PL is the Langmuir pressure porous media. It is defined as the ratio of molecular mean free
constant for porous media. path, λ (nm) with a characteristic length (effective pore radius)
According to the poroelasticity theory,28,30,33 the dynamic re and is given as
porosity for porous media can be expressed as
λ
Kn =
⎛⎛ ⎞
ϕ 1 1 ⎞⎟ re (11)
= exp⎜⎜⎜⎜ − [
⎟ ̅σ − σ0̅ − ( p − p )]
0 ⎟
⎟
ϕ0 ⎝ ⎝ K K p ⎠ ⎠ (4) The mean-free-path of molecules λ is expressed as
KBT
where the subscript 0 refers to the initial state, and Kp denotes λ=
bulk modulus of pores. According to eq 2, we obtain 2 πσ ̃ 2p (12)

5494 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683

Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
where KB is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature (K)
of gas, and σ̃ is collision diameter (m). From eq 10, the
characteristic length re can be obtained as
k∞ eτh
re = 2 2
ϕ (13)
where τh is the tortuosity of porous media. Therefore, eq 11
becomes
KBT ϕ kapp =
Kn =
2 πσ ̃ 2p 2 2k∞ eτh (14)
Flow regimes can be classified into four types based on the
Knudsen number. The four types are viscous (continuum) flow
(Kn < 0.01), slip flow (0.01 < Kn < 0.1), transition flow (0.1 <
Kn < 10), and Knudsen’s (free molecular) flow (Kn > 10).
2.4. Apparent Permeability for Porous Media. Because
of complex flow mechanisms, the apparent permeability of
porous media deviates significantly from the intrinsic
permeability. Therefore, we developed an intrinsic permeability
model as eq 10 for porous media. The value of the intrinsic
permeability k∞ does not depend on the type of fluid used or
the flow conditions in the experiments. It is just a property of
the porous medium. However, the permeabilities measured by
using gas such as He, CH4, and CO2 through ultralow
permeability rock samples are different from permeabilities
measured by liquids like water because of the effect of flow
regime. The apparent permeability is a function of both
intrinsic permeability and flow regime. The apparent
permeability model for gas reservoirs is given by the following
expression. We call it the BK (Beskok−Karniadakis) model,
which is based on a unified Hagen−Poiseuille-type formula-
tion.3,18,21
kapp = k∞ ef (Kn) (15)
where f(Kn) is slippage incremental factor as a function of the
Knudsen number Kn, the dimensionless rarefaction coefficient
ζ, and the slip coefficient b. It is defined as
⎛ 4Kn ⎞⎟
f (Kn) = (1 + ζKn)⎜1 +
⎝ 1 − bKn ⎠ (16)
According to previous studies, the slip coefficient b is an
empirical parameter. Beskok and Karniadakis suggested its
value as b = −1 and that it is independent of the type of gas.
The value of the dimensionless rarefaction coefficient ζ varies:
0 < ζ < ζ0 for 0 < Kn < ∞ where ζ0 is an asymptotic limit
value.21 A correlation is presented by Civan et al.3
ζ0
ζ=
1+
A small and the nonadsorbed gas is used to measure permeability,
Kn B (17)
where A = 0.17, B = 0.4348, and ζ0 = 1.358.
As the bulk modulus K is commonly several orders of
magnitude larger than the pore volume modulus Kp, we obtain
1 1 1 1
− K ≈ − K , then define the compressibility ct = K , which
K p p p
is a real property for rocks through experimental data.
However, it is accepted that the compressibility is not constant
and McKee’s model 35 is adopted in this work to
1 − e−α0(Δσ̅ −Δp)
presentct = ct0 α0(Δσ ̅ − Δp)
, and this dynamic model has been
verified by many researchers in recent years.27
5495
Article
Substituting eqs 14 and 16 into eq 15, the rigorous
mathematical formulation for the general gas permeability
model for porous media is given as
(r − dads)2 ϕ ⎛ 4Kn ⎞
kapp = (1 + ζKn)⎜1 + ⎟
8 τ ⎝ 1 + Kn ⎠ (18)
where subscript 0 refers to the initial value for shale rocks. Then
eq 18 becomes
(r0exp( −ct[σ ̅ − σ0̅ − (p − p0 )]) − dads)2
8
ϕ0exp( −ct[σ ̅ − σ0̅ − (p − p0 )])
(1 + ζKn)
τ
⎛ 4Kn ⎞
⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ 1 + Kn ⎠ (19)
This formulation contains the effects of mechanical
deformations (effective stress), adsorption, and flow regime
on the gas flow within reservoirs. This general gas permeability
model can be applicable for both conventional and unconven-
tional natural gas reservoirs.
3. MODEL ANALYSES AND VERIFICATIONS
3.1. Four Types of Reduced Models. The general
apparent permeability model for porous media contains the
three critical factors namely effective stress, adsorption and flow
regime. This model is applicable for different testing conditions
like changing the fluids or changing the fluid pressure. It is
difficult to verify this model when considering the three factors
together because the interactions between the factors are
complex and the parameters are hard to measure in the
experiments. However, in most cases, this complex model can
be degenerated to simple models when adopting the specific
conditions. Then we can use these reduced models to analyze
the experimental and field data, which can verify the general
model. For example, when we use nonadsorbed gas to measure
permeability of porous media, the effect of the adsorption can
be neglected and the model can remove the adsorption term.
Then we can compare the experimental data with the results of
this reduced model. Thus, based on reservoirs properties, the
model can be reduced into four types.
(1) First reduced model: when we adopt nonadsorbed gas
like He to analyze the evolution of permeability or when porous
media do not contain the adsorbed materials, the model just
considers the effects of effective stress and flow regime. (2)
Second reduced model: when the average pore radius is big and
the Knudsen number is less than 0.01, the flow regime belongs
to conventional flow and the model ignores the flow regime
term. (3) Third reduced model: when the Knudsen number is
the flow regime and adsorption can be neglected together and
the final model just is the function of the effective stress. (4)
Fourth reduced model: in most cases the effective stress has
great impact on the evolution of permeability but for the
ultralow permeability porous media and the flow regime plays a
more significant role in the variation of permeability. The
change of intrinsic permeability is very small and we only
consider the effect of flow regime.
3.2. Verification for the First Reduced Model. As
discussed above, in some cases the adsorption effect is small
and adsorption will be ignored in the general model. There two
main cases for this simplified model. One is that the
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels Article

nonadsorbed gases like He and N2 are used to analyze the data fitting for the model, we could obtain the initial
evolution of permeability. Another case is that porous media compressibility ct0 of sample 31A is 0.055 MPa−1 and the
has small capacity to adsorb gas like sandstones without the decline rate α0 for sample 31A is 0.02 MPa−1. The decane
clay and kerogen. It is noted that many unconventional gas permeability is the intrinsic permeability for the shale sample,
reservoirs have big capacity of the gas like coals, which means which ignores the effect of flow regimes. For the same shale
this reduced model is not applicable for these reservoirs. rock 31A, helium permeabilities were measured at the gas
The first reduced model without the effect of the adsorption pressure of 6.89 MPa and the results showed that permeability
is reorganized as were nearly 1 order of magnitude higher than permeability of
The stress−strain constitutive relationship (eq 1) becomes liquid oil under the same stress condition. The reason for the
difference between oil permeability and gas permeability is the
1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ α
εij = σij − ⎜ − ⎟σ δ + pδij effect of flow regime, which indicates the coupled impact of
2G ⎝ 6G 9K ⎠
kk ij
3K (21) effective stress and flow regimes on the unconventional gas
Equation 2 becomes reservoirs. The helium permeability declined from 3500 to 780
nanodarcy (nD) when the effective stress increased from 12 to
1 60 MPa as shown in Figure 3. There are strong mechanical,
εv = − (σ ̅ − αp)
K (22) chemical and physical interactions between the fluid molecules
Then eq 5 can be rewritten as and pores surface. In summary, both mechanical deformation
and flow regime have significant impacts on the apparent
⎛ p⎞ permeability and the reduced model has been well validated by
σ ̅ − p = −K ⎜εv + ⎟ Cui’s data.4 This reduced model is applicable for gas reservoirs
⎝ Ks ⎠ (23) without the adsorption phenomenon.
We verify this reduced model based on the experimental data 3.3. Verification for Second Reduced Model. For some
of Cui.4 In the experiments, permeability of shale rocks was gas reservoirs, the pores are big and the corresponding
measured with helium. The same pressure was used for the axial Knudsen number is less than 0.01 and traditional Darcy law
and radial confining in the core cell.36 The axial confining is applicable. The impact of the flow regime can be removed
pressure equaled to the radial confining pressure pr* = pz* = pc*. from the general model and this reduced model is acceptable
Therefore, the apparent permeability model for porous media for conventional gas reservoirs like sandstones.
can be simplified as The second reduced model without the effect of the flow
regime can be written as
kapp = k∞ 0exp( − 3ct[(pc* − pc0
* ) − (p − p )])(1 + ζKn)
0 2
⎛
⎜1 +
4Kn ⎞
⎟
k∞ =
(r exp(−c [σ̅ − σ̅ − (p − p )]) − D
0 t 0 0
p
CH4 p + P
L
)
⎝ 1 + Kn ⎠ (24) 8
where p*c is the mean confining pressure and ct denotes variable ϕ0exp( −ct[σ ̅ − σ0̅ − (p − p0 )])
compressibility. Based on eq 23, the effective stress can be τ (25)
considered as Δσ̅ − Δp = (pc* − pc0 * ) − (p − p0). The detailed
validation process can refer to the previous study.12,30 The data For the matrix deformation equation, it is the same as the
for shale sample no. 31A4 is selected to verify the model. general model and eqs 1, 2, and 11 are applicable in this
As shown in Figure 3, permeability calculated using the new simplified model. In the past decades, there are different models
model shows a decline trend when the effective stress changes to describe the evolution of permeability of coal without the
from 3.4 to 45 MPa. Based on experimental data, the decane consideration of flow regime.26,37,38 Cui and Bustin26 presented
permeability changed from 2 × 10−3 to 4.5 × 10−5 mD when the dynamic permeability model including the effect sorption
the effective stress increased from 3.4 to 45 MPa. Based on the induced volumetric strain as the following.
⎛ ⎛ ⎞
1 1 ⎞⎟
k∞ = k∞ 0exp⎜⎜3⎜⎜ − ⎟ [σ ̅ − σ0̅ − (p − p0 )]⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝K Kp ⎠ ⎠ (26)
Compared the reduced model to the CB model (Cui−Bustin
model),26 there are the same structure of formulations. If we
remove the thickness of the adsorption layer dads and the initial
r2 ϕ
intrinsic permeability is defined as k∞ 0 = 80 τ0 , the two
expressions will be the same. However, it is noted that the
mathematic methods to derive the models are different and the
general model comes from the poroelasticity theory. It is
pointed that the CB model did not consider the effect of the
flow regime. According to the study of Cui and Bustin, the CB
model can degenerate to the same structure as PM model
(Palmer−Mansoori model) and SD model (Shi−Durucan
model)37,38 under the conditions of uniaxial strain and constant
loading zone.
Figure 3. Comparison of the model with test data for permeability of The degenerated CB model for the coal reservoir under these
shale with decane and helium. conditions is
5496 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels Article

⎧ ⎡ (1 + v) 2E
k∞ = k∞ 0exp⎨3ct⎢ (p − p0 ) −
⎩ ⎣ 3(1 − v) 9(1 − v)
⎤⎫
(εs − εs0)⎥⎬
⎦⎭ (27)
The SD model for the coal reservoir under the same
conditions is
⎧ 3 ⎡ v
⎪ E
k∞ = k∞ 0exp⎨ ⎢ (p − p0 ) −
⎩ p
K ⎪
⎣ 1 − v 3(1 − v)
⎤⎫ ⎪
(εs − εs0)⎥⎬
⎦⎭ ⎪
(28)
The PM model for the coal reservoir is
Figure 4. Comparison of field data for coal seam with the prediction of
(1 − 2v)(1 + v) 2 ⎛ 1 − 2v ⎞⎟ the reduced model.
ϕ = ϕ0 + (p − p0 ) − ⎜
E(1 − v) 3⎝ 1 − v ⎠
(εs − εs0) (29)
adsorption together. Specifically, when porous media has high
This reduced model is similar to all these models and it can permeability (over 1 mD) and the mineral compositions do not
be verified by experimental data of coal permeability. The coal include the clay and other adsorbed materials like kerogen, the
is a typical unconventional gas reservoir and permeability is model is applicable for describing the dynamic performance of
about several millidarcy, which means the effect of flow regime permeability. Conventional gas reservoirs can adopt this
can be ignored. In this study, we select the filed data of coal assumption because of high intrinsic permeability and mainly
seams38 to verify this reduced model. Also, we adopt the composed of sandstones. Under this condition, the effective
variable compressibility in the reduced model. 35 The stress is the main reason for the variation of permeability and
parameters for this reduced model based on data fitting are permeability is the function of the effectives stress.
listed as Table 1. The third reduced model without the effects of flow regime
and adsorption can be formulated as
Table 1. Main Parameters for the Second Reduced Model
k∞ = k∞ 0exp( −3ct[σ ̅ − σ0̅ − (p − p0 )]) (30)
Based on Experimental Data
parameters value The stress−strain constitutive relationship becomes
Possion’s ratio 0.25 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ α
εij = σij − ⎜ − ⎟σ δ + pδij
Young’s modulus (MPa) 3585 2G ⎝ 6G 9K ⎠ kk ij
3K (31)
Langmuir pressure (MPa) 8.27
maximum adsorption induced volumetric strain 0.022 Equation 2 becomes
initial compressibility (MPa−1) 0.12 1
decline rate of the compressibility (MPa−1) 0.007 εv = − (σ ̅ − αp)
K (32)
initial reservoir pressure (MPa) 5.516
Then eq 5 can be rewritten as
⎛ p⎞
The predicted results for the coal seam have good σ ̅ − p = −K ⎜εv + ⎟
agreements with the field data as shown in Figure 4. Both ⎝ Ks ⎠ (33)
the effective stress and adsorption have impacts on the
evolution of permeability of the reservoir. When the gas It is acceptable that when the testing fluid pressure changes
produced from the well, the reservoir pressure will decrease and or the confinement pressure changes, permeability of porous
the effective stress will increase. If we do not consider the media will be changed. In the laboratory, the effective stress can
adsorption effect, permeability of the reservoir will decrease be obtained by the confining pressure and the gas pressure.27
because of the matrix deformation. However, the filed data Then eq 15 can be rewritten as
shows that permeability undergoes an increasing trend over the k∞ = k∞ 0exp( −3ct[(pc* − pc0
* ) − (p − p )])
0 (34)
whole period of production. Thus, it is seen that desorption of
the gas will induce the matrix shrinkage and permeability will where pc* is the mean confining pressure and ct denotes
become bigger when the gas pressure declines. In summary, for compressibility. In eq 15, the effective stress can be considered
this special case, the effective stress and adsorption are the key as Δσ̅ − Δp = (p*c − p*c0) − (p − p0). Also, we adopt the
factors that affecting the variation of permeability. The effect of dynamic compressibility model in this reduced model. We
the flow regimes can be ignored because of the small Knudsen select the experimental data of core sample for the coal
number. permeability39 to verify this reduced model. In the experiments,
3.4. Verification for the Third Reduced Model. In the N2 was used to measure permeability and the effect of
comparison with the first and second reduced models, the third adsorption can be neglected because of the very small
reduced model ignores the effects of flow regime and adsorption capacity for N2. The gas pressure for the Anderson
5497 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
01 is a constant (0.69 MPa), and model parameters are listed in
Table 2.
Table 2. Main Parameters for the Third Reduced Model
parameters value
initial compressibility (MPa−1) 0.0145
decline rate of the compressibility (MPa−1) 0.36
testing gas pressure (MPa) 0.69
The predicted results of the third reduced model have good
agreements with the experimental data39 as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Comparison of experimental data with the prediction results
of model for core sample of coal.
The effective stress is the most important factor for the
evolution of permeability. When the gas pressure is a constant
and the confining pressure increases, the effective stress for the
core sample will increase. Under this condition, the intrinsic
permeability will undergo a declining trend as shown in Figure
5. The effects of flow regime and adsorption are ignored
because of the small Knudsen number and the low adsorption
of N2. In summary, for this special case, the effective stress is
the only key factor that affecting the variation of permeability.
This reduced model is applicable for gas reservoirs with high
permeability and low adsorption capacity like sandstones.
3.5. Verification for the Fourth Reduced Model. As
discussed above, the flow regime will play an important role in
the evolution of the apparent permeability of unconventional
gas reservoirs. In this study, we adopted BK model21 to reflect
the impact of the flow regime based on the Knudsen number.
The Knudsen number can determine the impact degree on the
apparent permeability and it is the function of the gas pressure
and average pore radius. The intrinsic permeability is affected
by the adsorption and effective stress. They are not constants
during the production period. However, for the ultralow
permeability reservoirs when the compressibility of the pores is
small and the adsorption is weak, the flow regime is the
significant factor that changing the apparent permeability.
Under this condition, we can assume that the intrinsic
permeability is a constant. Permeability is just a function of
the gas pressure.40
The fourth reduced model without the effects of effective
stress and adsorption can be expressed as
5498
Article
⎛ 4Kn ⎞
kapp = k∞ 0(1 + ζKn)⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ 1 + Kn ⎠ (35)
For this reduced model, we assume the intrinsic permeability
for porous media is a constant when the effective stress is
unchangeable. The Knudsen number will be changed when the
gas pressure changes. The apparent permeability is the function
of the Knudsen number and we select the experimental data for
the matrix permeability of a siltstone sample of the Horseshoe
Canyon Formation in south central Alberta.40 The permeability
of the sample was measured by helium and methane. We use
permeability data of helium to validate the reduced model,
which can ignore the effect of adsorption. The results of
measurement and prediction of the model are shown in Figure
6. The predicted results of the degenerated model have good
Figure 6. Comparison of experimental data with the prediction results
of model for sample one.
agreements with the experimental data. It is seen that, when the
gas pressure drops, the apparent permeability for the sample
one will increase because of the slippage effect. From the
model, it is obtained that the intrinsic permeability for the
siltstone is 380 nD and the Knudsen number is 0.044 (slip flow
regime). The Knudsen number increases from 0.044 at 6.4 MPa
to almost 0.12 at 1 MPa. In summary, the apparent
permeability is bigger than the intrinsic permeability. The
flow regime is the most important factor for this variation.
Under this condition, the effect of effective stress and
adsorption are weak and we can neglect them.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Governing Equations for Porous Media. The
Navier-type equation for solid deformation can be expressed as
G
Gui , kk + uk , ki − αp , i − Kεs , i + fi = 0
1 − 2v (36)
where, f i denotes the component of the body force, α is the
Biot coefficient, εs is the adsorption induced volumetric strain
as shown in eq 3, ui is the component of the displacement, and
K is the bulk modulus of porous media. Equation 36 is the
governing equation for solid matrix deformation, where the gas
pressure p can be solved from the gas flow equation.
The equation for mass conservation of the gas is formulated
as
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
∂m
+ ∇·(ρg qg ) = Q s
∂t (37)
where ρg is the gas density, qg is the Darcy velocity vector, Qs is
the gas source or sink, t is the time, and m, the mass content
including free gas and adsorbed gas, is defined as
VLp
m = ρg ϕ + ρga ρs
p + PL (38)
where ρga is the gas density at standard conditions, ρs is porous
media density, ϕ is the porosity, VL is the Langmuir volume
constant, and PL represents the Langmuir pressure constant.
Assuming the effect of gravity is relatively small and can be
neglected, the Darcy velocity qg is given by
kapp
qg = − ∇p
μ (39)
where kapp is the apparent permeability of gas reservoirs and μ is
the viscosity of the gas. Substituting eqs 38 and 39 into eq 37,
we obtain
⎡ ρ p VLPL ⎤ ∂p ∂ϕ ⎛ kapp ⎞
⎢ϕ + s a 2
⎥ +p − ∇·⎜ p∇ p⎟ = Q s
⎣ (p + PL) ⎦ ∂t ∂t ⎝ μ ⎠
(40)
where pa is 1 atm of pressure. In eq 40, the apparent
permeability model is shown in eq 19.
The governing eqs 36 and 40 are a set of nonlinear partial
differential equations (PDEs), which can reflect the dynamic
evolution of gas pressure and permeability. The dynamic
compressibility for pores is used to reflect the physical property
of porous media. A finite element method is adopted to solve
PDEs and study evolution trends of the apparent permeability.
4.2. Comparison between First Reduced Model and
General Model. According to the conditions of the first
reduced model, we present one simulation model for gas
reservoirs as shown in Figure 7 and the model geometry is 0.1
Figure 7. Simulation model and conditions for the first and fourth
reduced models.
m × 0.1 m. The point A is located in the center of the
geometry. The upper boundary and the right boundary are
constant stress. The displacements at the left and bottom sides
are constrained in the horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively. A distributed overburden load of 10 MPa is
applied and remains unchanged during the whole process. The
initial gas pore pressure is 10 MPa and gas pressure on the right
side remains 0.1 MPa as shown in Figure 7. Zero fluxes are
specified on the other boundaries. In this section, the reduced
5499
Article
model ignores the effect of the adsorption and focus on the
evolution of permeability with impacts of effective stress and
flow regimes. We study three cases with different properties as
follows. The first case adopts permeability model as shown in
eq 24. The second case adopts the general model in the
simulation as shown in eq 19 with very small adsorption
capacity. The Langmuir volume for the second case is 0.0005
m3/kg, and the maximum adsorption induced strain is 0.001.
The third case adopts the general model with high adsorption
capacity. The Langmuir volume and maximum strain of this
case is 0.005 m3/kg and 0.02, respectively. The initial intrinsic
permeabilities for all three cases are the same and the value is
0.056 mD.
The initial gas pressure is 10 MPa, and the right boundary
pressure for gas is 0.1 MPa. Under these conditions, the gas will
flow out from the sample and the gas pressure in porous media
will decrease. If the gas is nonadsorbed gas like helium or
porous media has no adsorbed materials, the adsorption term
can be removed. The evolution trends for the three cases are
shown in Figure 8. It is seen that when the adsorption capacity
Figure 8. Evolution of apparent permeability for point A under
different conditions.
is very tiny, the general model has the same trend as the
reduced model and this evolution also is verified by
experimental data in the above section. When we increase the
capacity of adsorption, the evolution curve will deviate that of
the reduced model. The first reduced model is one kind of
degenerated models for the porous medium with low
adsorption capacity. The main factors for gas permeability
evolution are effective stress and flow regimes. For this kind of
model, when the gas pressure drops, the apparent permeability
will undergo the decreasing trend. But the gas permeability will
be rebounded to a higher value while the gas pressure decreases
to a lower magnitude as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
4.3. Comparison between CB Model of Coals and
General Model. Coal seam gas is one kind of unconventional
natural gas over the world. The gas methane is generated and
stored in the coals matrix. Permeability of coal plays a critical
role in the production of coal seam gas from coal reservoirs. CB
model is a popular permeability model with considerations of
stress conditions and adsorption swelling for coal, which has
been verified by many experiments of coal matrix. We adopt
four cases of simulation to study the evolution behaviors with
different permeability models. The first case with the second
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
Figure 9. Evolution of permeability ratio for point A under different
conditions.
reduced model is adopted in the simulation while case two and
case three with the general model are used. Because this
reduced model just considers the effect of adsorption and
effective stress on the gas permeability, we add the fourth case
of CB model as shown eq 26 to study the difference between
the general model and popular coal model. For the first case,
the initial intrinsic permeability of the reduced model is about
3.75 mD. In terms of the second case, the initial intrinsic
permeability is 3.75 mD. However, for the third case, we adopt
a low intrinsic permeability of 0.056 mD to present the impact
of flow regimes on the evolution of permeability. For the fourth
case, we still adopt the initial intrinsic permeability of 3.75 mD.
The other parameters such as Possion’s ratio, Young’s modulus,
and compressibility in the CB model are the same as the
general model.
According to the conditions of second reduced model, we
use the same simulation geometry as type one. The upper
boundary and the right boundary are constant stress. The
displacements at the left and bottom sides are constrained in
the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. A distributed
overburden load of 30 MPa is applied and remains unchanged
during the whole process. The initial gas pore pressure is 30
MPa, and gas pressure on the right side remains 4 MPa as
shown in Figure 10. Point A is located in the center of the
geometry. Zero fluxes are specified on the other boundaries.
The second case adopts the general model with high
permeability, which means that the slippage effect is weak.
Figure 10. Simulation model and conditions for the second and third
reduced models.
5500
Article
The third case adopts the general model with ultralow
permeability to analyze the evolution of permeability. As
discussed above, when the intrinsic permeability of porous
media is high and the corresponding Knudsen number is less
than 0.01, the impact of the flow regimes can be neglected.
It is clearly seen that the second reduced model experienced
the same trend as the general model with high initial intrinsic
permeability. Under these conditions, the impact of flow regime
can be neglected and the apparent permeability will decrease
with the gas depletion from the matrix as shown in Figure 11. It
Figure 11. Evolution of permeability ratio for point A under different
conditions.
is noted that the CB model has a good agreement with the
reduced model, which means that the dominated factors are
adsorption and effective stress. This reduced model is
applicable for coals with high initial intrinsic permeability.
When the initial permeability decreases like case three, the
apparent permeability will rebound because of the slippage
effect as shown in Figure 11. Through these simulation results,
we can see that the impact of flow regime has a close
relationship with the initial intrinsic permeability. For example,
for the shale gas reservoirs, permeability is ultralow and the flow
regime cannot be ignored. But for the conventional sandstones,
the slippage effect is weak and permeability evolution is
controlled mainly by effective stress.
4.4. Comparison between David Model of Sandstones
and General Model. As discussed above, the effective stress is
the main factor for the evolution of gas permeability for
conventional gas reservoirs like sandstones because of the high
initial intrinsic permeability and very low adsorption capacity.
David et al. proposed a permeability model for sandstones
based on experimental measurements. The David model9 can
be expressed as
k∞ = k∞ 0exp( −γ(σe − σe0)) (41)
where σe is the effective pressure, γ is the pressure sensitivity
coefficient, and σe0 is the initial effective pressure at reference
state. It is noted that this model has the same structure as the
third reduced model as shown in eq 30. If we define that the
pressure sensitivity coefficient γ = 3ct and the effective pressure
σe = σ̅ − p based on effective stress theory, the reduced model
is totally same as the David model.
We investigate the difference between the David model and
the general model. The simulation model geometry and
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
boundary conditions are the same as second type as shown in
Figure 10. Point A is located in the center of the geometry.
There are four cases for the simulations. The first case is the
simulation with the third reduced permeability model. The
second case adopts the general model for the porous medium
with high permeability and low adsorption capacity. But the
third case uses the general model with ultralow permeability
model and high adsorption parameters. The fourth case adopts
David model of sandstones. Both the David model and the
reduced model focus on the evolution of permeability from
effective stress. Under this condition, the effective stress is the
main factor that changes the intrinsic permeability. According
to the results, we can know the reduced model is useful for the
conventional gas reservoirs like sandstones. But for the
unconventional gas reservoirs, the evolution curve is different
from that of the reduced model. For the first case, the initial
intrinsic permeability is about 3.75 mD when we assume the
average pore radius for the porous medium is 1000 nm. In
terms of the second case with general model, the Langmuir
volume is 0.0005 m3/kg and the maximum strain is just 0.001.
Also, the initial intrinsic permeability of the second case is
approximately 3.75 mD. For the third case, the simulation
adopts that Langmuir volume is 0.005 m3/kg and the maximum
adsorbed strain is 0.02. The intrinsic permeability is smaller
than that of the above two cases and the value is about 0.056
mD. For the fourth case, high initial intrinsic permeability 3.75
mD is used and the other parameters are the same as the other
cases.
It is clearly seen that the third reduced model experiences the
same trend as the general model with high initial intrinsic
permeability and low adsorption capacity. Under these
conditions, the impacts from flow regime and adsorption can
be neglected and the apparent permeability will decrease when
the effective stress increases as shown in Figure 12. The David
Figure 12. Evolution of permeability ratio for point A under different
conditions.
model shows a good agreement with the reduced model at the
early stage of gas depletion. Permeability ratio from reduced
model reaches 0.83 when the gas pressure drops to only 4 MPa
while the ratio from David model is almost 0.8 at the same
pressure. Permeability from the David model is a little lower
than that of the reduced model at the lower pressure
magnitude. The reason is that the pressure sensitivity
coefficient γ is a constant but the compressibility in the general
5501
Article
model is a function of effective stress. If we adopt the dynamic
pressure sensitivity coefficient as the reduced model, the trends
for David model and reduced model will be the same. Through
these simulation results, we can see that the impact of effective
stress has a close relationship with the gas pressure. When the
intrinsic permeability is high, the effect of flow regimes is lower.
For example, permeability of conventional gas reservoirs is
higher than that of shale reservoir, which means that the effect
of flow regime can be ignored. The adsorption capacity for
conventional gas reservoirs is also lower compared with
unconventional gas reservoirs like coals and shales. The main
dominated factor for conventional gas reservoirs is the effective
stress. Overall, this reduced model is applicable for conven-
tional gas reservoirs like David model.
4.5. Comparison between Javadpour Model of Shales
and Fourth Reduced Model. In recent years, many scholars
emphasize the importance of the flow regimes for unconven-
tional gas reservoirs and many experiments show that lower gas
pressure will lead to big apparent permeability. The impact of
effective stress on the gas permeability is low when the variation
of gas pressure is small. Javadpour13 proposed an apparent
permeability model for gas shales and this model has been used
by many scholars. The Javadpour model can be expressed as
2r ⎛⎜ 8RT ⎞⎟
0.5
μ ⎛ ⎛ 8πRT ⎞0.5 μ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎞ r 2
kapp = + ⎜1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ − 1⎟⎟
3 ⎝ πM ⎠ p ⎝ ⎝ M ⎠ pr ⎝ β ⎠⎠ 8
(42)
where M is gas molar mass, R denotes the gas constant, T is the
absolute temperature in Kelvin, r is the average pore radius, μ
denotes the gas viscosity, and β is the tangential momentum
accommodation coefficient varied from 0 to 1.
Javadpour model takes into account the effect of Knudsen
diffusion and slip flow on the gas flux. The intrinsic
permeability for Javadpour model can be assumed to be a
constant. As discussed above, the general permeability model
for unconventional gas reservoirs like shales can be reduced
into the fourth type because the variation of effective stress is
small. We adopt the gas helium to do these simulations, which
can ignore the effect of adsorption. The simulation model
geometry and boundary conditions are the same as the first
reduced model as shown in Figure 7. Point A is located in the
center of the geometry. To some extent, the decrease of gas
pressure means the increase of the Knudsen number and the
apparent permeability will undergo an increasing trend in the
gas depletion process. In this section, we propose two cases for
numerical simulation with the same geometry and boundary
conditions. The first case adopts the reduced model without
considering the variable intrinsic permeability and the
adsorption capacity. The second case adopts the Javadpour
model to study the evolution of gas permeability for shales. The
initial intrinsic permeability for the first case is 300 nD. The
second case is based on the Javadpour model with constant
intrinsic permeability 300 nD. The initial gas pressure is 10
MPa and the boundary gas pressure is just 0.1 MPa.
It is clearly seen that the fourth reduced model experiences
the same trend as the Javadpour model of shales with ultralow
intrinsic permeability. Under these conditions, the impacts of
effective stress and adsorption on the gas permeability can be
neglected and the apparent permeability will increase with the
gas depletion from the reservoirs as shown in Figure 13. When
the gas pressure decreases from 10 MPa to only 0.1 MPa, the
apparent permeability increases more than 60 times of the
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
Figure 13. Evolution of permeability ratio for point A under different
conditions.
initial permeability (300 nD) for both the reduced model and
Javadpour model. The reason for this increase is the existence
of slippage effect and Knudsen diffusion in nanopores. Overall,
this kind of model is different with the previous three reduced
models because the flow regime is the only main factor for the
gas permeability evolution. This kind of reduced model is
applicable for unconventional gas reservoirs with low
adsorption capacity like shale reservoirs and tight gas reservoirs.
4.6. Complex Evolution and Classifications for
General Model. It is noted that the evolution of gas
permeability for gas reservoirs is a complex process based on
the simulation results above. There are some gaps for the
dynamic behaviors of gas permeability between conventional
gas reservoirs and unconventional gas reservoirs. In this study,
we propose the general gas permeability for both conventional
and unconventional gas reservoirs. The evolution trend for
permeability depends on the interactions between stress,
adsorption and flow regimes. In some cases, the effective stress
plays the dominated role in permeability variation as discussed
in section 4.4. In other cases, the flow regimes become the main
factor for permeability evolution as discussed in section 4.5. In
this section, we do more simulations as shown in Figure 14 to
study this complex process. Under different conditions, the
dominated factors for the variation of permeability will be
changed. It is interesting to see that the evolution trends of
permeability are not straight lines. Permeability may undergo
increase or decrease trends when the gas pressure decreases.
Figure 14. Simulation model and conditions for the general apparent
permeability of gas reservoirs.
5502
Article
Generally, the increase of the effective stress can decrease the
intrinsic permeability. The flow regimes can improve the flow
rate for tight porous media when the intrinsic permeability is
small. Desorption can lead to the matrix shrinkage and reduce
the effective stress. Also, adsorption layer thickness can
decrease the effective average pore radius as shown in Figure
2. In order to accurately predict the trend of permeability for
porous media including conventional and unconventional gas
reservoirs, we presented eight cases of simulation with the
general permeability model to investigate the complex
evolution. For the conventional or unconventional gas
reservoirs, there are different properties for adsorption capacity,
compressibility and initial intrinsic permeability as shown in
Table 3. Based on these properties, we propose eight cases to
investigate the evolution of apparent permeability for possible
gas reservoirs. The results show that for cases of the same
boundary conditions and geometries, when the properties of
porous media such as adsorption parameters changes, the
evolution trend will be different. These cases correspond to the
possible gas reservoirs including conventional gas reservoirs like
sandstones and unconventional gas reservoirs like shales and
coals. This general permeability model bridges the gaps
between conventional and unconventional gas reservoirs.
Specifically, the permeabilities have decreasing trends for case
two and case six as show in Figure 15. The reason is that initial
intrinsic permeability is high and flow regime has small effect
on the apparent permeability. For these two cases, the
compressibility is high, which means the increase of effective
stress can reduce permeability more efficiently. The apparent
permeabilities undergo big increasing trends for case three, case
five and case seven. The reason is that the initial intrinsic
permeability is very low (0.006 mD), which means the flow
regimes cannot be ignored. When the gas pressure drops to less
than 1 MPa, the Knudsen number will become big and the
slippage effect will significantly contribute to the apparent
permeability. For other cases, the evolutions experience
different trends. Generally, at the early stage, the gas pressure
drops from 25 MPa to just 4 MPa, the effective stress will
increase, which leads to the decrease of permeability. When the
gas pressure is less than 4 MPa, the flow regime will lead to big
apparent permeability because of high Knudsen number.
Overall, the evolution of the apparent permeability is complex.
The trend will be different when the properties change. Based
on specific conditions, each case can correspond to either
conventional gas reservoir like sandstones or unconventional
gas reservoirs such as shales and coals as listed in Table 3. We
also present a classification zone for possible gas reservoirs
based on reservoirs properties as shown in Figure 16. For
example, the conventional gas reservoirs like sandstones have
little or no adsorption capacity for natural gas and the intrinsic
permeability is usually big, which means the slippage effect will
be lower. Permeability will experience a decreasing trend when
the gas pressure drops as shown in Figure 16. For the
unconventional gas reservoirs like shales, the intrinsic
permeability is lower, which means slippage effect is important.
The apparent permeability may undergo an increasing trend
when the gas is depleted from the reservoirs. For the coals,
permeability will decrease at the early stage of gas depletion and
rebound to increase at the later time of production. The reason
is that at the early stage, the effective stress dominates the
variation of permeability and the flow regimes control
permeability evolution when the gas pressure is lower as
shown in Figure 16.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels Article

Table 3. Properties of Porous Media for Eight Cases with the General Model
adsorption capacity compressibility (MPa−1) initial intrinsic permeability (mD) possible gas reservoirs
3
case one Langmuir volume 0.005 m /kg 0.02 0.006 unconventional, coals
maximum adsorption strain 0.02
case two Langmuir volume 0.005 m3/kg 0.02 1 unconventional, coals
maximum adsorption strain 0.02
case three Langmuir volume 0.005 m3/kg 0.001 0.006 unconventional, shales
maximum adsorption strain 0.02
case four Langmuir volume 0.005 m3/kg 0.001 1 unconventional, coals
maximum adsorption strain 0.02
case five Langmuir volume 0.0005 m3/kg 0.02 0.006 unconventional, shales
maximum adsorption strain 0.001
case six Langmuir volume 0.0005 m3/kg 0.02 1 conventional, sandstones
maximum adsorption strain 0.001
case seven Langmuir volume 0.0005 m3/kg 0.001 0.006 unconventional, shales
maximum adsorption strain 0.001
case eight Langmuir volume 0.0005 m3/kg 0.001 1 conventional, sandstones
maximum adsorption strain 0.001

for the gas permeability evolution laws between conventional

and unconventional reservoirs. In this study, we propose a
general model of gas permeability to bridge these gaps. This
model is developed based on poroelasticity theory and flow
regimes theory. Based on experimental data and simulation
results, three main conclusions can be drawn.
(1) For natural gas reservoirs, there are three main factors
that affecting the evolution of gas permeability namely
effective stress, adsorption and flow regimes. However, in
terms of the specific reservoirs properties, the dominat-
ing factors are different. For the conventional gas
reservoirs like sandstones, the dominating factor is
effective stress. But for the unconventional gas reservoirs
such as shales, the impact of flow regimes cannot be
neglected.
(2) Based on properties of gas reservoirs, the general model
Figure 15. Evolution of permeability ratio for point A under different can degenerate into four kinds of reduced models. When
conditions. the adsorption capacity is low, the adsorption term of the
general model can be removed and the model becomes
the first reduced model. When the initial intrinsic
permeability of the porous medium is very high, the
impact of flow regime can be neglected. Then the general
model becomes the second reduced model. When the
adsorption capacity is low and initial intrinsic perme-
ability is high, the effective stress is the most important
factor for gas permeability. The general model can be
written as the third reduced model. Flow regimes play
the dominating role in the fourth reduced model when
the intrinsic permeability is lower. Each reduced model
has been verified based on experimental data or field
data. These reduced models can correspond to different
kinds of gas reservoirs.
(3) The evolution of permeability for gas reservoirs is a
complex and complicated process. When the properties
of a reservoir change, the evolution trend is different.
Figure 16. Permeability evolution zones from general model for Based on the possible properties of gas reservoirs, there
conventional and unconventional natural gas reservoirs. are two bounds for permeability evolution zones. The
upper bound is the gas reservoirs only affected by the
flow regimes, and the lower bound is the reservoirs only
5. CONCLUSIONS affected by the effective stress. Overall, the general model
Permeability is a critical property for both conventional and is applicable for both conventional and unconventional
unconventional natural gas reservoirs. But there are some gaps gas reservoirs.
5503 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: peng.cao@research.uwa.edu.au.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by Australian International Post-
graduate Research Scholarship (IPRS), Australian Postgraduate
Award (APA), and partially funded by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51474204). This support is gratefully
acknowledged.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Loucks, R. G.; Reed, R. M.; Ruppel, S. C.; Jarvie, D. M.
Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in
siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. J. Sediment. Res.
2009, 79 (11−12), 848−861.
(2) Heller, R.; Vermylen, J.; Zoback, M. Experimental investigation of
matrix permeability of gas shales. AAPG Bull. 2014, 98 (5), 975−995.
(3) Civan, F.; Rai, C. S.; Sondergeld, C. H. Shale-gas permeability
and diffusivity inferred by improved formulation of relevant retention
and transport mechanisms. Transp. Porous Media 2011, 86 (3), 925−
944.
(4) Cui, A.; Wust, R.; Nassichuk, B.; Glover, K.; Brezovski, R.;
Twemlow, C. In a nearly complete characterization of permeability to
hydrocarbon gas and liquid for unconventional reservoirs: a challenge
to conventional thinking. Presented at the Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, August 12−14, 2013.
(5) Kwon, O.; Kronenberg, A. K.; Gangi, A. F.; Johnson, B.; Herbert,
B. E. Permeability of Illite-bearing shale: 1. Anisotropy and effects of
clay content and loading. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 2004, 109 (B10),
B10205.
(6) Soeder, D. J. Porosity and permeability of eastern Devonian gas
shale. SPE Form. Eval. 1988, 3 (1), 116−124.
(7) Li, S.; Tang, D.; Xu, H.; Yang, Z.; Guo, L. Porosity and
permeability models for coals using low-field nuclear magnetic
resonance. Energy Fuels 2012, 26 (8), 5005−5014.
(8) Bhandari, A. R.; Flemings, P. B.; Polito, P. J.; Cronin, M. B.;
Bryant, S. L. Anisotropy and stress dependence of permeability in the
Barnett shale. Transp. Porous Media 2015, 108 (2), 393−411.
(9) David, C.; Wong, T.-F.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, J. Laboratory
measurement of compaction-induced permeability change in porous
rocks: Implications for the generation and maintenance of pore
pressure excess in the crust. Pure Appl. Geophys. 1994, 143 (1−3),
425−456.
(10) Liu, J.; Chen, Z.; Elsworth, D.; Qu, H.; Chen, D. Interactions of
multiple processes during CBM extraction: a critical review. Int. J. Coal
Geol. 2011, 87 (3), 175−189.
(11) Raghavan, R.; Chin, L. Productivity changes in reservoirs with
stress-dependent permeability. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2004, 7 (4),
308−315.
(12) Cao, P.; Liu, J.; Leong, Y. K. Combined impact of flow regimes
and effective stress on the evolution of shale apparent permeability. J.
Unconv. Oil Gas Resour. 2016, 14, 32−43.
(13) Javadpour, F. Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas flow
in mudrocks (shales and siltstone). J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2009, 48 (8),
16−21.
(14) Ziarani, A. S.; Aguilera, R. Knudsen’s permeability correction for
tight porous media. Transp. Porous Media 2012, 91 (1), 239−260.
(15) Garrouch, A. A.; Smaoui, N. Application of artificial neural
network for estimating tight gas sand intrinsic permeability. Energy
Fuels 1996, 10, 1053−1059.
(16) Zhang, L. J.; Li, D. L.; Lu, D. T.; Zhang, T. A new formulation of
apparent permeability for gas transport in shale. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2015, 23, 221−226.
5504
Article
(17) Li, J.; Liu, D.; Yao, Y.; Cai, Y.; Xu, L.; Huang, S. Control of CO2
permeability change in different rank coals during pressure depletion:
an experimental study. Energy Fuels 2014, 28 (2), 987−996.
(18) Florence, F. A.; Rushing, J.; Newsham, K. E.; Blasingame, T. A.
Improved permeability prediction relations for low permeability sands.
Presented at Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium,
Denver, CO, USA, April 16−18; Society of Petroleum Engineers,
2007.
(19) Klinkenberg, L. The permeability of porous media to liquids and
gases. In Drilling and Production Practice; American Petroleum
Institute, 1941.
(20) Yao, J.; Sun, H.; Fan, D.; Wang, C.; Sun, Z. Numerical
simulation of gas transport mechanisms in tight shale gas reservoirs.
Pet. Sci. 2013, 10 (4), 528−537.
(21) Beskok, A.; Karniadakis, G. E. Report: a model for flows in
channels, pipes, and ducts at micro and nano scales. Microscale
Thermophys. Eng. 1999, 3 (1), 43−77.
(22) Darabi, H.; Ettehad, A.; Javadpour, F.; Sepehrnoori, K. Gas flow
in ultra-tight shale strata. J. Fluid Mech. 2012, 710, 641−658.
(23) Li, J.; Liu, D.; Lu, S.; Yao, Y.; Xue, H. Evaluation and modeling
of the CO2 permeability variation by coupling effective pore size
evolution in anthracite coal. Energy Fuels 2015, 29 (2), 717−723.
(24) Naraghi, M. E.; Javadpour, F. A stochastic permeability model
for the shale-gas systems. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2015, 140, 111−124.
(25) Tanikawa, W.; Shimamoto, T. Comparison of Klinkenberg-
corrected gas permeability and water permeability in sedimentary
rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46 (2), 229−238.
(26) Cui, X.; Bustin, R. M. Volumetric strain associated with methane
desorption and its impact on coalbed gas production from deep coal
seams. AAPG Bull. 2005, 89 (9), 1181−1202.
(27) Pan, Z. J.; Connell, L. D. Modelling permeability for coal
reservoirs: A review of analytical models and testing data. Int. J. Coal
Geol. 2012, 92, 1−44.
(28) Zhang, H. B.; Liu, J. S.; Elsworth, D. How sorption-induced
matrix deformation affects gas flow in coal seams: A new FE model.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2008, 45 (8), 1226−1236.
(29) Sakhaee-Pour, A.; Bryant, S. Gas permeability of shale. SPE
Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2012, 15 (4), 401−409.
(30) Cao, P.; Liu, J.; Leong, Y. K. A fully coupled multiscale shale
deformation-gas transport model for the evaluation of shale gas
extraction. Fuel 2016, 178, 103−117.
(31) Ghanizadeh, A.; Clarkson, C.; Aquino, S.; Ardakani, O.; Sanei,
H. Petrophysical and geomechanical characteristics of Canadian tight
oil and liquid-rich gas reservoirs: I. Pore network and permeability
characterization. Fuel 2015, 153, 664−681.
(32) Moghaddam, R. N.; Aghabozorgi, S.; Foroozesh, J. Numerical
simulation of gas production from tight, ultratight and shale gas
reservoirs: flow regimes and geomechanical effects. Presented at
EUROPEC 2015, Madrid, Spain, June 1−4, 2015.
(33) Detournay, E.; Cheng, A. H. D. Fundamentals of poroelasticity.
In Comprehensive Rock Engineering: Principles, Practice and Projects,
Fairhurst, C, Ed.; Pergamon Press, 1993; Vol. 2, Chapter 5, pp 113−
171.
(34) Yuan, W. N.; Pan, Z. J.; Li, X.; Yang, Y. X.; Zhao, C. X.; Connell,
L. D.; Li, S. D.; He, J. M. Experimental study and modelling of
methane adsorption and diffusion in shale. Fuel 2014, 117, 509−519.
(35) McKee, C.; Bumb, A.; Koenig, R. Stress-dependent permeability
and porosity of coal and other geologic formations. SPE Form. Eval.
1988, 3 (1), 81−91.
(36) Connell, L. D.; Lu, M.; Pan, Z. J. An analytical coal permeability
model for tri-axial strain and stress conditions. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2010,
84 (2), 103−114.
(37) Palmer, I.; Mansoori, J. How permeability depends on stress and
pore pressure in coalbeds: a new model. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 6−9;
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1996.
(38) Shi, J. Q.; Durucan, S. Drawdown induced changes in
permeability of coalbeds: a new interpretation of the reservoir
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505
Energy & Fuels Article

response to primary recovery. Transp. Porous Media 2004, 56 (1), 1−

16.
(39) Robertson, E. P.; Christiansen, R. L. Modeling laboratory
permeability in coal using sorption-induced strain data. SPE Reservoir
Eval. Eng. 2007, 10 (3), 260−269.
(40) Letham, E. A. Matrix permeability measurements of gas shales:
gas slippage and adsorption as sources of systematic error. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2011.

5505 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00683

Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 5492−5505