Dynamic Characterization of

Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: Field Cases

SPE Exploration and Development of Unconventional
Reservoirs Conference
Jorge Arvalo, Francisco Castellanos, Jose Pacheco, PEMEX E&P,
Nestor Martnez, CNH, and Francisco Pumar, CBM
Neuqun, Argentina
10-12 June 2014

Contents
Introduction and background
Conceptual model for unconventional gas
reservoirs
Model modification to consider desorbed gas
Analyses of field cases
Final remarks

Shale Total Recoverable Resources (TRR)

In June 2013 the U.S EIA estimated TRR of shale gas at 6,634 tcf across 137
formations in 41 countries.
TRR of shale gas is nearly ten times the 665 tcf estimated for the U.S.
The international some countries in the Middle East, which still have significant
conventional natural gas reserves still in place.
Shale test wells have already been fracture-stimulated in Argentina, Australia,
the United Kingdom, Poland, China, and Mexico.

Some plays like Eagle Ford and Woodford have

transborder continuity
Bakken
Antrim

Marcellus

Niobrara

Monterey
Heneysville
Barnet
Woodford

Other plays like Bakken and

Haynesville in the U.S. are
analogous to some Mexican
plays.

Contents
Introduction and background
Conceptual model for unconventional gas
reservoirs
Model modification to consider desorbed gas
Analyses of field cases
Final remarks

The Mexican shale basins are conterminous with

those in the U.S.
EUA
Sierra Marathon
Ouachita

Haynesville

Eagle Ford
BurroPicachos

Chihuahua
Sabinas

Mxico

Burgos
Mz

Golfo de Mexico

Ocano
Pacfico
Tampico Misantla

rea de Lutitas del Cretcico Superior

Veracruz

rea de Lutitas del Jursico Superior

Esc.: 1:9,000,000

100

200

400
Kms

In Mexico, five oil provinces with

potential shale oil/gas plays have
been
identified:
Chihuahua,
Sabinas-Burro Picachos, Burgos,
Tampico-Misantla, and Veracruz.

Mexico began exploring its shale basins in 2011

Chihuahua
Burro-Picachos
Sabinas

Aceite
Gas y condensado

Burgos MZ

Gas seco

Chihuahua
Burro-Picachos

Aceite

Sabinas

Gas y condensado
Burgos MZ

Repblica Mexicana

Gas seco

Tampicoaceite en
MisantlaGas
In ystudy
estudio

Repblica Mexicana

TampicoMisantla

Veracruz

200

400

Veracruz

In study
Gas
y aceite en
estudio

Some important shale

hydrocarbon basins have
been identified such as La
Pimienta-La Casita and
Eagle Ford formations in
which 545 tcf of TRR were
estimated.
This represents 27% of
North American shale gas
reserves and 7.5% of shale
gas reserves worldwide.

800 Kilmetros

200

400

800 Kilmetros

The geological formations of these basins range from low k (< less than 0.1
md) to extremely low k (nano-darcies).
It is necessary to drill horizontal wells with multiple fracking stages to improve
the fluid transmissibility in the formations.

Contents
Introduction and background
Conceptual model for unconventional gas
reservoirs
Model modification to consider desorbed gas
Analyses of field cases
Final remarks

Conceptual model for unconventional gas reservoirs

COT > 2

Thermal maturity

Micro- y nanoporosity

Organic material content (OMC) and

adsorbed gas are the governing factors that
have a major influence on the behavior of
unconventional gas reservoirs with low
permeability.

This behavior can be represented through

conceptual models taking the following
concepts into consideration:
1) storage mechanisms
2) transport
3) physical gas adsorption and desorption
effects

Adsorbed gas
adsorbido

Geomechanic
properties
9

Triple porosity storage model for UGRs

Main types of gas storage in UGRs:
a) free gas in the matrix pores
b) adsorbed gas in the matrix surface

A triple-porosity model includes:

free gas and adsorbed gas (it
considers all of the gas that is stored
in formations that contain organic
material)
Porosity 1 = matrix micro-pores
Porosity 2 = natural fractures
Porosity 3 = gas adsorbed (a virtual
porosity in the surface of the formation
particles in the matrix)

a combination of double-porosity,
matrix fractures and adsorbed gas in
which free gas is stored in the doubleporosity

Transport mechanism with adsorption process

In the primary porosity (rich in
OMC) there are large surface
areas for gas adsorption that
allow for the storage of large
amounts of gas.
The rock pores are extremely
small, which causes the
system permeability of this
primary
porosity
to
be
substantially small, resulting
in no gas or water flow.
A diffusion process is present in the primary porosity that can be categorized into three
different mechanisms:
Rock matrix diffusion (molecule-molecule interactions dominate)
Knudsen diffusion (molecule-surface interactions dominate)
Surface diffusion from the adsorbed gas layer
=

Physical gas adsorption and desorption in UGRs

The Langmuir model
describes the gas
adsorption phenomenon in
solids, which considers that
a gas molecule is adsorbed
in a single place and
doesnt affect neighboring
molecules.

In UGRs that present OMC, a storage mechanism that is different from conventional gas
reservoirs is the additional phenomenon of adsorption of the gas molecules
to the organic rock walls (adsorption or physisorption, a process in which the adsorbed
molecules conserve their chemical nature)

=
+

Langmuir isotherm of a saturated gas reservoir with

adsorbed gas
Langmuir isotherms describe the
maximum gas amount in UGRs that
can be stored under certain
conditions with OMC, p and T.

There are different factors that can

decrease the maximum adsorption
capacity of reservoir gas such as
OMC, p, and T.

Desorption or saturation pressure is equal to the undersaturated initial reservoir pressure,

which can be graphically represented by an initial gas content that is on the isotherm curve.

Langmuir isotherm of an unsaturated gas reservoir

with adsorbed gas

In this case, the desorption or saturation pressure is less than the undersaturated initial
reservoir pressure, represented by an initial gas content that is below the isotherm.

Behavior of the adsorption isotherm upon changing

the Langmuir pressure

Other main parameters to consider during the exploitation of unconventional gas reservoirs
include the Langmuir parameter values since they determine the type of isotherm and in
consequence the desorption pressure, the gas storage volume, and the desorbed gas that
can be produced during exploitation.

Contents
Introduction and background
Conceptual model for unconventional gas
reservoirs
Model modification to consider desorbed gas
Analyses of field cases
Final remarks

Model modification to consider desorbed gas

The model for conventional and unconventional reservoirs takes the desorption process
into account as a modified function of pseudotime.
The desorption phenomenon can be taken into consideration in the solutions for the
dry gas diffusion equation, using gas m(p) and modified total system compressibility
(ct*)

=2
0

= 1 + + +

where
=

Model modification to consider desorbed gas

To eliminate the nonlinearity of the diffusion equation, the Fraim and Wattenbarger
pseudotime function is used.
Fraim and Wattenbarger studied flow regimes from a production data analysis through
the derivative function for normalized rate.
They defined the term time match function to take into account the definition of
modified apparent pseudotime that considers gas desorption effects using ( ).

These variables consider instantaneous desorption (assumption for long-term gas

production in some low-permeability, shale, and coalbed methane reservoirs).

Flow regime identification using the derivative

function for normalized gas rate and pseudotime
The modified pseudotime function can be included in the multi-fractured horizontal
well models.
The desorbed gas effect can be considered in the pseudotime function to resolve the
modified diffusion equation for adsorbed gas.
Flow regime

Log-Log diagnostic

Derivative function slope

Radial derivative

m = 1/4

Bilinear derivative

m=0

Radial derivative

m = 1/2

Linear derivative

m=0

Radial derivative

m=0

m=1

Bilinear flow

Linear flow

Radial flow
PSS flow.

Radial derivative

Type of plot

(1.1)
.

(1.2)

(1.3)
.

(1.4)
(1.5)

(1.6)

Derivative functions for normalized gas rate for

vertical wells (gas adsorption using pseudotime)
Flow
regime

Specialized plot

Interpretation equation
(2.1)

Lineara

(1) .

(2.2)

Bilinearb

(1)

1
.

984 4
4

(2.3)

Radialc

Sphericalb
=

Boundary

dominated
effectsb
Solution:
a.

(1)

(1)
.

1640

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

, = 201 and constant , = 128

(2.4)

10098

712
2.2458
=

+ 2

2
3

(2.5)

Derivative functions for normalized gas rate for

horizontal wells (gas adsorption using pseudotime)
Flow regime

Derivative
function plot

Early linear flow

m = 1/2

Bilinear flow

m = 1/4

. 4

m = 1/2

m = 1/2

Linear flow

Transitory linear
flow in the matrix

Type of plot

Interpretation equation

1262

1
+ 1

4064

(3.1)

0.25
2
+

1262

1
+ 3

1262

1
4

(3.2)

(3.3)

(3.4)

Contents
Introduction and background
Conceptual model for unconventional gas
reservoirs
Model modification to consider desorbed gas
Analyses of field cases
Final remarks

Extension of the Eagle Ford formation in southern

Texas

Data from a well located in the Eagle Ford shale

formation in southern Texas

Depth, ft.

2,500 - 14,000

Net thickness, ft.

50 - 300

Pressure gradient, psia/ft.

0.4 - 0.8

TOC, %

2-9

Gas saturation, %:

83 85

Permeability, nd

1 - 800

Data from well A in the Eagle Ford formation in

southern Texas
Well radius, ft.
Lateral length, ft.
Thickness, ft.
Depth, TVD, ft.
Hydrocarbon porosity (%) (hc = ef (1-Sw))
Reservoir pressure, psia
Temperature, R
Gas compressibility, 10-5 psia-1
Gas viscosity, cp
Number of effective fractures
Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV), MMft3

0.33
4,000
283
10875
5.76
8,350
745
6
0.03334
20
169

Gas rate, cumulative production and pwf history for

well A

Diagnostic plots of normalized m(p)/qg vs. t and

m(p)/qg vs. ta for well A

Specialized plots to characterize bilinear flow:

m(p)/qg vs. t1/4 and m(p)/qg vs. ta1/4

Specialized plots to characterize linear flow of

m(p)/qg vs. t1/2 and m(p)/qg vs. ta1/2

Adsorbed gas values of shale formations in the

U.S. (Andrews, 2013)

Rock parameters to estimate gas desorption in

well A (Xu, 2012)

VL =

720

PL =

550

T=

285

0.0576

scf/ton

r =

2.5

gr/cm3

SRV =

17

MM ft.

mr =

12

MM tons

Matrix and fracture permeabilities for well A both

without and with gas desorption
Permeability
matrix ( ):
fracture ( ):

Without gas
desorption
2.15 104
1.61 102

OGIP = 3.15 Bscf (without gas adsorption)

With gas
desorption
1.28 105
2.62 102

OGIP = 4.06 Bscf (with gas adsorption)

Mechanical state of well B

Data from well B in the Eagle Ford formation in

northern Mexico
Well radius, ft.
Lateral length, ft.
Thickness, ft.
Depth, TVD, ft.
Hydrocarbon porosity (%) (hc = ef (1-Sw))
Reservoir pressure, psia
Temperature, R
Gas compressibility, 10-4 psia-1
Gas viscosity, cp
Number of effective fractures
Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) (MMft3)

0.375
1837
492
2530
6.0
5,100
667
1.3
0.0239
8
445

Drainage volume of well B

3936 ft

646 ft

Cross-sectional area to flow is:

Acw = 2xeh = 2 x 1837 x 492 = 1,807,411 ft2

The matrixnatural fracture area between the blocks formed by the hydraulic fractures is
Acm = 2 x 2yehL = 2 x 2 x 246 x 1837 x 492 x 8 = 3,873,024 ft2

Pressure and gas rate history of well B

t (days)

Diagnostic plots of m(p)/qg vs. ta for well B

Specialized plots to characterize linear flow of

m(p)/qg vs. ta1/2

Parameters calculation for well B

Using the m3 slope equation, matrix permeability (km) was estimated,
assuming that the fracture porosity is negligible compared with matrix
porosity,

The reservoir is saturated in its desorption pressure (the desorption began

with reservoir pressure)
and Rock compressibility (cf) is negligible in comparison with gas
compressibility
= + + +
= cg + cd
where

=
+

=
+

History matches of qg vs. ta1/2 and m(p)/qg vs. ta1/2

for linear flow

Rock parameters to estimate gas desorption in

well B (Xu, 2012)
VL =

60

PL =

250

T=

207

0.06

scf/ton

r =

2.8

gr/cm3

SRV =

446

MM ft.3

mr =

35

MM tons

km = 3.85x10-6 md
OGIP = 1.7 Bscf (without gas adsorption)

Final remarks
In UGRs with high OMC, it is important to consider the gas that is
adsorbed in the formation since this can significantly alter the OGIP and
the estimated parameters such as primary and secondary
permeabilities.
Applying Langmuirs isotherm model, it is possible to take into
consideration and predict the behavior of adsorbed and desorbed gas in
UGRs that contain organic material. This is significant since, once gas
desorption pressure is reached, there is an additional production
mechanism in the reservoir.
Pseudotime developed for the characterization of conventional gas
reservoirs can be effectively applied to UGRs, taking into account
instantaneous gas desorption in the total compressibility of the system
and depending on the average reservoir pressure.

Final remarks
Through the well data analysis, it was possible to confirm the
applicability of the modified models to analyze production and
characterization data from UGRs, taking into consideration the
phenomenon of adsorption using Langmuirs isotherm and modified
pseudotime at any moment during well production.
For the characterization models used in this work, the assumption was
made that the desorbed gas is instantaneous, obtaining good results.
However, it is important to bear in mind that desorption is not
instantaneous in all reservoirs. As such, it is recommended to adjust the
models taking into account real gas desorption time.
Langmuir isotherms only consider the monocomponent fluid, methane
gas. For multicomponent blends, it is recommendable to utilize the
multicomponent Langmuir isotherm or to study how to adjust a cubic
state equation, allowing us to better characterize the desorption
phenomenon.

THANKS
QUESTIONS?