Investigation of Methane Desorption and Its Effect on the Gas

Nov 30, 2016 - A number of potential gas reserves are present in shale reservoirs around the world. The gas production process is more complex in shal...
0 downloads 0 Views 1007KB Size
Subscriber access provided by Caltech Library Services

Article

Investigation of Methane Desorption and its Effect on the Gas Production Process from Shale: Experimental and Mathematical Study Jinjie Wang, Mingzhe Dong, Zehao Yang, Houjian Gong, and Yajun Li Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02033 • Publication Date (Web): 30 Nov 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 5, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Energy & Fuels is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

Investigation of Methane Desorption and its Effect on the Gas Production

2

Process from Shale: Experimental and Mathematical Study

3

Jinjie Wanga,c, Mingzhe Dongb,*, Zehao Yanga, Houjian Gonga, Yajun Lia a

4

College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao, China, 266580

5

b

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 1N4

6

c

Faculty of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei, China, 430074.

7

ABSTRACT:

8

production process is more complex in shale reservoirs than in conventional reservoirs, mainly because of the

9

ultralow permeability of the matrix, complex pore structure and organic components that cause desorption.

10

Long-term gas production comes from both free gas expansion and adsorbed gas desorption. In addition to the

11

estimation of the gas content reserve in a reservoir, an accurate description of the effect of adsorbed gas on the

12

dynamic gas production process is meaningful for predicting gas production from shale. Experimental and

13

mathematical efforts have been undertaken to obtain an accurate description of the gas production process. This

14

paper investigates desorption and diffusion, which are two of the key mechanisms in shale matrix during gas

15

production. The experimental results suggest that the gas production process from shale can be divided into two

16

stages: free gas expansion from inorganic micropores in the early stage and the subsequent desorption–

17

diffusion-dominated stage in the matrix. Furthermore, the effects of production pressure (equal to the external

18

pressure), temperature and particle diameter on the dynamic gas production process were examined based on the

19

variable-volume volumetric method (VVM). Both higher external pressure and higher temperature lead to the

20

lower contribution of desorbed gas to the total gas production. Moreover, the delayed adsorption diffusion

21

model, which considers the dynamic gas desorption/adsorption, is presented to adequately represent the

22

measured dynamic experimental data. The calculated gas production curves are in good agreement with

23

experimental observations. Mathematical calculations of the production rate also suggest and confirm the

24

two-stage process of gas production. This paper enables operators to develop a primary understanding of how

25

gas desorption affects the performance of a shale gas well and provides insights into the analysis of the gas flow

26

regime and more accurate forecasting for shale gas production.

27

1. INTRODUCTION

A number of potential gas reserves are present in shale reservoirs around the world. The gas

28

Shale gas efficiently helps relieve the global resource shortage and has recently become a topic of

29

considerable interest in energy investigations.1-3 China is estimated to have the world’s largest shale gas reserves,

30

comparable to the resources of its conventional natural gas.4 In contrast to conventional reservoirs, shale is *

Corresponding author at: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.

Tel: +1 403 210 7642. Fax: +1 403 284 4852. E-mail: [email protected] (Mingzhe Dong) 1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

31

composed of organic and inorganic mineral content5,6, which constitutes a system of ultralow-permeability

32

matrix with kerogen and natural/artificial fractures.7,8 Although significant progress has been made in horizontal

33

wells and the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas reservoirs, gas recovery remains as low as approximately 10–30%

34

of the original gas in place.9,10 It is commonly accepted that gas developed in shale comes from two sources:

35

free gas in the matrix pores and natural fractures and adsorbed gas on the surface of pores within kerogen and

36

clay minerals in the matrix.11,12 One of the issues yet to be addressed is the lack of shale gas production prediction

37

and depiction of the production process by considering the dynamic gas adsorption/desorption process.

38

Knowledge of the transport properties of the shale matrix is important for accurately predicting gas

39

production. Although permeability of the fracture is an important parameter for gas flow in a shale reservoir, the

40

pore size and pore distribution in the shale have a significant impact on the gas production process.13-15 Shale

41

contains a large number of nanometer- to micrometer-sized pores.16-19 The small size of the pores in kerogen

42

makes the specific surface area for shale large; hence, gas production processes that depend on surface area, such

43

as diffusion and desorption, become important. Compared with conventional gas reservoirs, shale gas reservoirs

44

may produce a considerable amount of gas from desorption and will exhibit a stable production period.20 Gas

45

desorption may be a major gas production mechanism and can be an important factor for ultimate gas recovery.

46

In addition, the presence of kerogen in shale increases its porosity and lowers the permeability of the reservoir.

47

The kerogen pores are primarily nanoporous, and the permeability ranges from tens to hundreds of nD.21-23

48

Because kerogen behaves as an additional rock component with the capability of storing and providing

49

hydrocarbons during gas development, identifying the relative proportions of free gas and desorbed gas is

50

important when assessing the shale gas-in-place and designing the production strategies effectively.24 However,

51

only limited attention has been paid to desorption and its effect on the description of dynamic methane

52

production at isothermal and constant well pressure. Neglecting the gas desorption effect might lead to

53

underestimation of gas production potential and misunderstanding in the dynamic production history prediction,

54

particularly in shale formations with higher total organic content (TOC).

55

Some attempts to develop experiment and mathematical models have been under taken on the production

56

process in shale.25-27 Research groups worldwide have addressed shale-related problems using different

57

approaches, and the outputs of experimental results are steadily increasing.28-30 Some studies have indicated that

58

15% to 85% of the total gas in shale may exist as adsorbed phase in organic matter.30 Therefore, a significant

59

property impacting shale gas production is the desorption of gas in shale. The adsorption/desorption isotherm,

60

which is the most widely used method, demonstrates the capacity of the reservoir rock to hold adsorbed gas with

61

respect to pressure at constant temperature.5,24 The pressure around the sample changes gradually during the 2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 25

Page 3 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

62

measurement of the adsorption/desorption isotherm until equilibrium. The release of adsorbed gas is pressure

63

dependent, so production pressure can affect the contribution of adsorbed gas to gas production. However, the

64

pressure vibration during each isothermal test can also significantly impact the dynamic gas transport. Therefore,

65

further research on the adsorption and its effect on the gas production process should be undertaken. Others

66

have attempted to record the pressure decay history to analyze the unsteady production process of shale gas or

67

approximate ‘constant pressure’ during gas transportation in shale.31,32 Measurements tracing the bottom

68

pressure of a well in Changqing Oil Field in China indicated that no discernable pressure drop occurred for as

69

long as two years. It is reasonable to assume that the external pressure of a matrix should be constant, and study

70

of the gas production process under constant external pressure should be conducted. However, the current

71

literature does not provide insights into the dynamic gas production process, which exhibits the real production

72

process with constant production pressure, nor does it discuss the accurate division of the gas transport stages.

73

This gap in the literature is mainly due to the lack of sufficient control of the production or external pressure

74

during the test. Here, external pressure denotes the pressure around the shale particle. Other factors related to the

75

production capacity of shale include the specific surface area, pressure, temperature, pore diameter, and sorption

76

affinity.33,34

77

Some gas transport models have been proposed that consider both free gas and adsorbed gas

78

transportation.35-39 Three types of mechanisms could play a role in gas transportation in shale: Darcy flow,

79

diffusion (Fickian diffusion, Knudsen diffusion and surface diffusion) and desorption.40 Currently, shale gas is

80

produced mainly through primary recovery by reservoir depressurization. In the primary decrease of reservoir

81

pressure, methane desorbs from the internal kerogen surfaces, concentrates in the natural or manmade fractures,

82

migrates toward the wellbore, and then flows up to the ground surface through the wellbore annulus. The flow

83

through the cleat is pressure-driven and may be modeled using Darcy’s law, whereas flow through the matrix is

84

assumed to be concentration-driven and is modeled using Fick’s law. Carlson and Mercer35employed Langmuir

85

isotherm theory to consider the effect of desorption behavior of shale gas and described the effect of diffusion

86

by Fick's law. Javadpour et al.11 systematically introduced the Knudsen mechanism into gas diffusion in shale

87

with a small pore diameter. Javapour41 further proposed a diffusion model for shale gas containing viscous

88

diffusion and Knudsen diffusion. These two diffusion mechanisms were coupled in the form of linear

89

summation. The viscous diffusion in the model was corrected by the slip effect. Ozkan et al.42 presented a

90

dual-porosity multiple-fractured horizontal well model for shale gas reservoirs. Civan21 coupled the mechanisms

91

of viscous diffusion and Knudsen diffusion through a function of the Knudsen number in the form of a product.

92

Freeman et al.43 and Yao et al.36 mixed the diffusion mechanisms through the dusty gas model (DGM). However,

3

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

93

little attention has been given to the systematic investigation and comparison of the dynamic gas desorption

94

effect on the gas production process for shale gas reservoirs. In addition, there is limited material in the

95

literature on the contribution share of free gas and desorbed gas to the total gas production. Hence, a detailed

96

and systematic study of dynamic gas production in shale is necessary.

97

This paper presents new experimental results investigating the process of gas production in shale. The

98

dynamic gas production in shale is obtained according to the dynamic record of gas diffused out of and desorbed

99

from shale. Fifty-eight tests were conducted under constant external pressure of three temperatures and five

100

pressures for three shale samples with different particle diameters. Furthermore, the effect of external pressure,

101

temperature and particle diameter is discussed in depth. Additionally, by combining the experimental results

102

with a corresponding mathematical model, information is obtained on the dynamic gas production process, the

103

contributions of free gas and adsorbed gas to the total gas production, the apparent diffusion coefficient and the

104

adsorption/desorption rate coefficient by considering the effect of kerogen. Moreover, the gas production

105

process is experimentally divided into two stages, as has been confirmed mathematically by calculating the

106

critical point.

107

2. BACKGROUND

108

2.1 Variable-volume Volumetric Method

109

The variable-volume volumetric method (VVM) was designed to study the gas production process in

110

shale.27,30 The main concept of the VVM is measuring the gas volume produced from a shale sample by

111

changing the system volume and keeping the external pressure of the shale particles constant. The sensitivity

112

and accuracy of the approach have been verified by comparing the test results with the constant-volume

113

volumetric method.

114

Figure1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental setup. The experimental procedures include the

115

following five steps: 1) Leak test: Before adding a shale sample into the sample cell, helium is injected into the

116

system (including the reference cell, sample cell and pipelines) to check the leakage. The leakage will be

117

guaranteed if no pressure drop is detected for 4 h. 2) Sample preparation: according to the volume of the sample

118

cell, approximately 160 g of crushed shale samples is dried, weighed, sealed in the sample cell, and degassed at

119

10-3 Pa for 4 h. 3) Volume determination: the volume of the reference cell plus connected pipelines and the

120

volume of the sample cell plus connected pipe lines are accurately measured using the equation of state of real

121

gas. 4) Gas volume recording: both the temperature and external pressure are maintained at the designed

122

constant values during each test, as guaranteed by a dual temperature control system and a pump with an 4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 25

Page 5 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

123

accuracy of ±2.6 µL. Thus, the volume change of the gas system is recorded over time, which shows the

124

dynamic process of desorption–diffusion. 5) Gas saturation: after reaching the equilibrium state of each test, the

125

pressure of the sample cell is reduced to and saturated at the next pressure for the following test.

126 127 128 129

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus29 Based on the recorded volume change over time, the amount of gas produced under a specific test condition can be calculated with the following equation:

∆V =

130

PVz 0T0 P0 zT

(1)

131

where △V denotes the volume of gas produced at standard conditions (Scm3/g); P, V, T, and z denote the

132

pressure (MPa), volume (cm3), temperature (K), and compressibility factor under the experimental conditions,

133

respectively; and P0, T0, and z0 are the pressure (MPa), temperature (K), and compressibility factor under

134

standard conditions, respectively.

135

The advantages of the VVM are as follows: (i) The dynamic desorption process can be recorded through

136

this method, which will simulate the actual production history of a shale gas field. (ii) The experimental

137

conditions, particularly the pressure, are neither too sensitive to control nor too slow to respond for experimental

138

management, and thus, the measurement is easy to operate and more reliable. (iii) The VVM method provides

139

the experimental data for obtaining the desorption rate coefficient, which will be utilized to obtain the

140

contribution of free gas and desorbed gas and to further predict gas production in a gas shale field.44

141

2.2 Delayed Adsorption Diffusion (DAD) Model

142

Under a certain pressure and temperature, one or more gas transport mechanisms coexist in shale rocks. A

143

comprehensive constitutive equation is designed to describe this gas production process to facilitate field

144

application. The core issue is to characterize the share of each transport mechanism in the total transport, 5

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 6 of 25

145

particularly the additional amount of gas produced due to the existence of kerogen in shale. Therefore, based on

146

the knowledge of free gas flow in pores and adsorbed gas adsorption/desorption from kerogen, we define the

147

apparent gas diffusion coefficient (D), adsorption rate coefficient (λ), and desorption rate coefficient (µ) in this

148

study as the physical parameters of free gas diffusion and adsorbed gas adsorption/desorption, respectively. Based

149

on this consideration, a numerical model derived and modified from Fick’s law is27

∂c f

150

∂t

= D(

∂ 2c f ∂r

2

+

2 ∂c f ∂ca )− r ∂r ∂t

(2)

151

where cf is the concentration of free gas in the pore space of the shale particle (spherical, mol/m3), D is the apparent

152

gas diffusion coefficient (m2/s), r is the distance to the center of the shale particle (m), ca is the equivalent surface

153

concentration or adsorbed gas concentration (mol/m3), and t is time (s).

154 155

The dynamic gas adsorption/desorption process before equilibrium can be described with the following equations:41

∂ca = λ c f − µ ca ∂t

156

(3)

157

where λ is the adsorption rate coefficient (s-1) and µ is the desorption rate coefficient (s-1).When λ×cf is smaller

158

than µ×ca—that is, the desorbed rate is higher than the adsorbed rate—the gas stored in kerogen starts to produce.

159

The relationship between λ and µ under equilibrium pressure is expressed as

160

c eq λ = R = ae q µ cf

161

where cfeq is the equilibrium concentration of free gas in the pore space (mol/m3), caeq is the equilibrium

162

concentration of the adsorbed gas concentration on the surface (mol/m3), and R is the ratio of caeq and cfeq.

(4)

163

Eqs. (3) and (4) reveal the interaction or the influence of the adsorbed gas on the dynamic gas production

164

process. It is assumed that the gas concentration at the external boundary (cfe) remains constant during the

165

experiment. The internal boundary condition is an impermeable boundary condition. The initial concentration in

166

the pore of the particle is cfi, and the initial equivalent surface concentration on the surface of the pore is cai. For the

167

gas production process, the external boundary concentration (cfe) is smaller than the initial concentration (cfi) in

168

the pore of the particle. r0 is the radius of the shale particle. Thus, the boundary conditions and initial conditions

169

can be expressed as follows:

170

The boundary conditions: 6

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

171

cf

= c fe

(5)

=0

(6)

∂c f

172

173

r = r0

∂r

r=0

The initial conditions:

174

cf

175

ca

t = 0 ,0 ≤ r < r0

t = 0,0 ≤ r < r0

= c fi

(7)

= cai

(8)

176

The physical parameters for the gas transport process are denoted as the apparent gas diffusion coefficient,

177

adsorption rate coefficient and desorption rate coefficient, which might reveal the nature of the gas–solid

178

interaction as a dynamic process. By solving the above equations, the analytical solutions for the free gas

179

concentration (cf) in the shale particle and equivalent surface concentration (ca) of adsorbed gas at position r are

180

equal to27

181

182

183

184

185

186 187



( c f 0 − c fi ) e Pn t sin( m n r )

n =1

p r r sin( m n r0 ) λµ − n (1 + ) cos( m n r0 ) + 2 mn D ( pn + µ ) 2 r0

cf = cf 0 + ∑

n=1, 2, 3 ···

( ca 0 − cai ) µ e Pn t sin( mn r ) pn r r sin( mn r0 ) λµ n =1 ( − (1 + ) cos( mn r0 ) + )( pn + µ ) 2 r0 2 mn D ( pn + µ ) ∞

ca = ca 0 + ∑

(9)

(10)

The expressions of pn and mn in Eqs. (9) and (10) are as follows:

pn = −

Dn2π 2 + r02 (λ + µ) ± −4r02 Dn2π 2 µ + ( Dn2π 2 + r02 (λ + µ ))2 2r02

mn = −

pn (λ + µ + pn ) D( pn + µ )

(11)

(12)

By integrating the total concentration from the surface of a particle to its center, the amount of gas produced from the particle at an arbitrary time can be obtained as

7

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

r0

V (t ) = Vm ∫ (c f 0 + ca 0 − c f − ca ) ⋅ 4π r 2φ dr =

Page 8 of 25

4π r03φ (c fi − c f 0 )(ca eq + c f eq )Vm

0

188

3c f eq



8π r0φ (c fi − c f 0 ) D2e pnt kn ( pn + µ )2 (r0 kn cos(r0 kn ) − sin(r0 kn ))

n =1

pn (r0 pn (λµ + ( pn + µ )2 ) cos(r0 kn ) − 2 Dkn ( pn + µ )2 sin(r0 kn ))

−Vm ∑

(13)

189

Eq. (13) illustrates that when the time for gas transport is sufficiently long, the total produced gas volume is

190

not associated with the adsorption/desorption rate coefficient. That is, the adsorption/desorption rate coefficient is

191

the parameter that reveals the dynamic process before the adsorption/desorption and diffusion equilibrium are

192

reached. The adsorption/desorption rate coefficient and apparent diffusion coefficient for each isothermal and

193

constant external pressure condition can be obtained by fitting Eq. (13) with the experimental data based on the

194

least-squares method. In addition, the amount of free gas and desorbed gas produced can be obtained by

195

integrating Eqs. (9) and (10). Then, the production rate for free gas and desorbed gas can be calculated

196

accordingly.

197

3. EXPERIMENTAL

198

3.1 Sample Characterization

199

The shale samples studied in this paper were collected from Lower Jurassic Ziliujing Formation of Sichuan

200

Basin, which is located on the upper Yangzi block in the eastern Sichuan fold belt in China. The total carbon

201

contents for shale samples from two strata are 1.7% and 4.7%. The permeability of the sample is between 0.6 to

202

1.68 mD. They seem to be higher than the published shale permeabilities in the literature.45-47 This is mostly

203

because there are micro-fractures distributed in the shale cores. The average porosity for the sample is

204

3.76%.The shale samples were originally sieved using the shaker screen, and three of the diameters were chosen

205

for this study. We primarily use scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and N2adsorption to calculate and analyze

206

the pore structure in this study.

207

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

208

Shale matrix has a complex pore structure, with pore sizes ranging from nanometers to micrometers. The

209

BIB-polished cross-sections were Au-coated and imaged with an SU 8000 microscope (Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo,

210

Japan) with a backscatter detector for phase contrast imaging. From BIB cross-sections, large areas were

211

selected to be imaged at magnifications of 5,000 and 100,000 using 10–20% of overlap to create a large

212

representative map to study the pores down to the SEM resolution.

213

N2 adsorption/desorption isotherm 8

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 9 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

214

Knowledge of the pore size distribution is critical for understanding the mechanism of the gas desorption–

215

diffusion process. The matrix pore structure is difficult to characterize due to the wide pore size distribution, and a

216

large portion of porosity is distributed in nanopores associated with kerogen and clays.18 Fluid invasion methods

217

have historically been used to characterize shale samples but have been found to be inaccurate in showing the pore

218

size distribution. Liquid nitrogen desorption (LND) is the most widely used means of depicting the pore structure,

219

interpreted using the multi-point Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method.48 Samples are first sealed into the test

220

cell. Liquid nitrogen is then utilized as the test liquid to obtain the desorption isotherm at the designed pressure.

221

3.2 Adsorption Isotherm Measurement

222

The selected shale samples are accurately weighed and sealed into the sample cell, maintaining the

223

temperature within ± 0.1 K. The sample cell is evacuated after the leak test is finished. Before gas adsorption,

224

the void volumes of the test cells are measured with helium gas. After another evacuation with a vacuum pump,

225

methane is injected, and the test pressure steadily increases from atmospheric pressure to the highest pressure.

226

The time for every pressure point to reach equilibrium is typically more than 12 h, after which the pressure is

227

raised to the next pressure point, until the highest designed pressure is attained.

228

3.3 Methane Production Process Measurement

229

The amount of gas diffused out of and desorbed from shale is determined by recording the change in gas

230

volume at an isothermal and constant external pressure with the VVM.30 The dynamic gas production volume

231

over time is recorded during each measurement of the VVM. The production process of shale is investigated

232

under three temperatures and five external pressures with shale samples of three diameters. The schematic

233

diagram of the apparatus is shown in Figure 1.The shale sample is first saturated at the highest saturation

234

pressure, and then, a pressure difference is created by releasing a proper amount of gas from the reference cell.

235

The external pressure of the sample is held constant by changing the volume of the test system. After each

236

measurement, the external pressure is reduced to the next external pressure until the last pressure point.

237

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

238

The real-time dynamic gas production process of shale at constant external pressure and temperature

239

conditions was investigated using the VVM. All 58 experimental and calculated results are summarized in Table

240

1, including the test conditions (external pressure and temperature), incremental produced amount of gas (△Vt),

241

processing time of each test (t), apparent diffusion coefficient (D) and contribution of desorbed gas to the total

242

gas production (Cde).

9

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 10 of 25

Table 1. Summary of Experimental Results for the Dynamic Gas ProductionProcess Number

External pressure (MPa)

Temperature (K)

△Vt (Scm3/g)

t (min/min)

D (10-12m2/s)

Cde (%)

Particle diameter (µm)

1

13.99

308.15

0.08

41

14.0

29.2

1420

2

10.53

308.15

0.21

80

11.5

32.4

1420

3

6.84

308.15

0.36

95

8.9

37.2

1420

4

3.62

308.15

0.56

140

6.1

40.5

1420

5

0.50

308.15

0.90

150

2.4

42.2

1420

6

13.97

313.15

0.08

25

17.1

27.7

1420

7

10.61

313.15

0.17

50

13.0

30.1

1420

8

7.10

313.15

0.35

75

11.8

34.5

1420

9

3.64

313.15

0.45

81

8.7

38.9

1420

10

0.53

313.15

0.72

116

4.8

40.7

1420

11

13.96

318.15

0.09

26

18.4

26

1420

12

10.40

318.15

0.21

45

14.8

27.8

1420

13

7.02

318.15

0.33

49

12.3

32.7

1420

14

3.53

318.15

0.51

80

9.7

37.2

1420

15

0.38

318.15

0.68

117

5.8

39

1420

16

13.74

308.15

0.07

29

14.0

29

360

17

10.35

308.15

0.22

37

11.4

32.7

360

18

7.00

308.15

0.34

43

9.0

36.8

360

19

3.14

308.15

0.58

63

6.2

39.9

360

20

0.14

308.15

0.87

137

2.5

41.3

360

21

13.54

313.15

0.05

26

17.0

27.8

360

22

10.25

313.15

0.19

50

13.1

30.4

360

23

6.81

313.15

0.33

58

11.7

35.1

360

24

3.50

313.15

0.46

65

8.8

38.6

360

25

0.16

313.15

0.78

113

4.8

40.5

360

26

13.62

318.15

0.11

14

18.5

26.1

360

27

10.53

318.15

0.18

37

14.9

27.7

360

28

6.85

318.15

0.39

32

12.2

32.8

360

29

3.36

318.15

0.52

64

9.6

37.1

360

30

0.17

318.15

0.72

75

5.9

39.2

360

31

13.69

308.15

0.08

23

14.1

28.6

130

32

10.50

308.15

0.22

35

11.3

32.4

130

33

6.87

308.15

0.35

47

9.1

36.6

130

34

3.61

308.15

0.56

40

6.1

40

130

35

0.53

308.15

0.91

83

2.4

42.1

130

36

13.97

313.15

0.07

12

17.1

27.5

130

37

10.61

313.15

0.18

26

13.1

29.8

130

38

7.18

313.15

0.34

44

11.8

35

130

39

3.69

313.15

0.46

58

8.9

38.7

130

10

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 11 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

40

0.54

313.15

0.78

55

4.8

40.6

130

41

14.15

318.15

0.09

14

18.4

25.9

130

42

10.54

318.15

0.23

17

15.0

27.8

130

43

7.03

318.15

0.32

21

12.0

32.6

130

44

3.70

318.15

0.54

39

9.8

37.3

130

45

0.52

46

318.15

0.66

46

5.7

38.8

130

#

358.15

0.40

22

32.0

12.5

360

#

13.82

47

10.27

358.15

0.59

24

26.2

19.5

360

48

#

358.15

0.69

42

18.7

21.1

360

49

#

3.35

358.15

0.72

45

14.4

23.4

360

50

0.18#

358.15

1.10

58

10.3

25.9

360

308.15

0.27

340

8.90

48.8

1420

6.93

*,#

51

3.40

52

0.20

303.15

0.95

36

3.0

43.6

130

53

0.20

308.15

0.79

25

6.5

41.9

130

54

0.20

313.15

0.68

22

12.5

40.3

130

55

0.20

318.15

0.62

15

19.0

39.0

130

56

0.20

323.15

0.58

14

21.3

34.6

130

57

0.20

328.15

0.49

8

25.2

29.7

130

58

0.20

333.15

0.36

4

27.1

24.1

130

243

*

saturation pressure is 4.2 MPa; # the TOC for these tests is 4.7%, that of the others is 1.7%

244

4.1 Pore Structure Analysis

245

The pore structure of the sample was detected using SEM with argon ion-beam milling. Figure 2 shows the

246

SEM image displaying the distribution of kerogen in shale and the image for the pore structure of kerogen.

247

Figure 2a illustrates that considerably more organic material is distributed in inorganic matter. Figure 2b is a

248

magnified image of the observation in the red circle of Figure 2a, showing the existence of nano-pores in

249

kerogen. It shows that there are many pores in kerogen, the majority of which are on the order of nanometers.

250

SEM can provide images only on the surface; thus, the relationship between the SEM results and the above

251

measurement can be described only qualitatively. It is crucial to obtain the exact pore size and pore size

252

distribution because different mechanisms occur in pores with different diameters.49

253

Figure 3 shows a pore size distribution with diameters ranging from 0.3 to 200 nm by BJH calculation with

254

a N2 desorption isotherm.50 A smaller pore diameter and larger pore volume will lead to a greater specific

255

surface area. Haber suggested that pores could be divided into three types: macropores (>50nm), mesopores

256

(between 2nm and 50nm) and micropores (