Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Low velocity non-linear flow in ultra-low permeability reservoir

Baoquan Zeng a,⁎, Linsong Cheng b, Chunlan Li b
a
Petrochina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing 100083, P.R. China
b
Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, P.R. China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Experimental equipment is designed to investigate single-phase oil/water flow in ultra-low permeability
Received 8 August 2008 cores, using capillary flow meter to achieve accurate measurement of fluid volume. The results confirm
Accepted 18 October 2011 that the single-phase oil/water flow in ultra-low permeability cores is not consistent with Darcy's Law. Typ-
Available online 29 October 2011
ical flow curve is a combination of straight line and concave curve. The lower permeability the core has, the
stronger non-linearity the concave curve shows. Pseudo (minimum) threshold pressure gradient exists wide-
Keywords:
ultra-low permeability reservoir
ly in utra-low permeability cores for different fluid. Physical simulation and theoretical studies have shown
threshold pressure gradient that the relationship between threshold pressure gradient and permeability is a power function with the
simulated oil power of − 1. Nonlinear factor is defined to describe nonlinear flow characteristics. Higher viscosity leads
distilled water to larger nonlinear factor and wider distribution of pressure. The minimum threshold pressure gradient
nonlinear flow can be calculated by pseudo threshold pressure gradient and nonlinear factor.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The pore throat network of ultra-low permeability reservoir is
very complicated because of small pore throat radius and high pore
throat ratio (Ren, 2006; Miao et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009). NMR ex-
periments on movable fluid show that (Wang et al., 2001; Jiang,
2004; Yang et al., 2007), under the stage of irreducible water, T2 spec-
trum of oil phase showed double-peak characteristics, in which the
left peak refers to immovable oil and the right refers to movable oil.
Lower permeability will result in the lower saturation of movable
fluid and lower efficiency of water flooding.
Due to the complicated pore structure of ultra-low permeability res-
ervoir, the flow is quite different from that in medium/high permeabil-
ity reservoir. The whole flow curve (Swartzendruber, 1962; Yan,
1990; Yan, 1993; Lv et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2003; Han et al., 2004;
Xu and Yue, 2007; Xu et al., 2007) is a combination of straight line
and concave curve. Under higher pressure gradient, the flow curve pre-
sents as straight line, with its reverse extension not going through the
origin. Under lower pressure gradient, the flow curve presents as a con-
cave curve. According to the achievements from soil science, Basak
(1977) divided flow regimes as Pre-Darcy, Darcy Zone, Post-Darcy
Zone. Kutilek(1972) summarized 12 different types of non-Darcy flow.
In order to explain the non-Darcy phenomena in porous media, many
scholars have carried out the relevant research. Huang (1998) proposed
the concept of fluid flow: (1) fluid in porous media contains bulk fluid
and boundary fluid; (2) the bulk fluid is located at the axis of porous
media with its nature not being influenced by interfacial phenomena;
(3) the boundary fluid would interact with the molecules on the pore
surface, showing the characteristics of non-Newtonian fluids.
Based on large numbers of research, Gavin (2004) summarized
the mechanism of non-Darcy's law:
(1). Particle migration
For the natural cores from ultra-low permeability reservoir, the
clay particles are prone to dispersion, peeling, moving to the
pore throat downstream, which causes irreversible blockage
and permeability reduction.
(2). Solid–liquid interaction
For large specific surface area, the interaction force between fluid
in the microporous and solid-molecules on the surface of porous
cannot be ignored. The polar molecules in fluid would attach to
the surface and form a special structure, which reduces the
pore radius. Under higher pressure gradient, the interaction
force would be destroyed gradually. Then flow capacity is a func-
tion of pressure gradient in ultra-low permeability pours.
(3). Non-Newtonian characteristics
This view is similar to assumption from Yanzhang Huang. Fluid
attached to the pore wall (boundary layer fluid) shows stron-
ger non-Newtonian properties with lower shear rate.
2. Experimental apparatus
2.1. Materials

⁎ Corresponding author. 23 natural cores are taken from an ultra-low permeability reser-
E-mail address: zengbaoquan_cup@163.com (B. Zeng). voir in western China, with the diameter of 2.5 cm, length range of

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.10.006
2 B. Zeng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6

4.7 cm–6.6 cm, permeability range of (0.04–3.5) × 10 − 3 μm 2, and po- Table 2

rosity range of 7.9%–16.51% (Tables 1, 2). 13 cores are saturated with Property of natural cores in displacement experiment of distilled water.

simulated oil, and the other 10 cores are saturated with distilled Sample Core number Porosity Length Diameter Area Permeability
water. number
(%) L (cm) D (cm) A (cm2) K (×10− 3 μm2)
The fluid used in experiments includes simulated oil and distilled
1 1–69/86-4 16.04 6.007 2.519 4.984 0.284
water. The simulated oil is a mixture of degassing crude oil and kero-
2 1–41/97-1-1 12.59 5.683 2.513 4.960 0.639
sene, with viscosity of 1.25 mPa s and 2.0 mPa s, density of 0.8 g/ml 3 1–86/82-2 14.05 6.355 2.519 4.984 0.121
and 0.85 g/ml (20 °C, 1 atm), The density of distilled water is 0.95 g/ml, 4 6–10 15.30 4.718 2.485 4.850 0.531
with viscosity of 0.83 mPa s. 5 1–10/97-1-1 11.87 5.659 2.512 4.956 1.321
6 1–10/97-2-1 12.98 5.651 2.513 4.960 3.092
7 1–80/269-1 9.00 5.743 2.493 4.881 0.391
2.2. Apparatus 8 2–29/38-3 15.83 6.431 2.517 4.976 0.080
9 2–29/38-1 13.67 6.261 2.519 4.984 0.122
In order to investigate nonlinear flow in ultra-low permeability 10 1–136/269-1 10.30 5.666 2.495 4.889 0.461
cores, a whole set of experimental equipment is designed and built
(Fig. 1), which includes five parts: power system, buffer system,
core holder system, confining pressure system and the measurement
system. All systems are placed in incubator except power systems. 3.3. Definition and measurement of minimum threshold pressure
The experimental fluid was driven into the core holder, the outlet of gradient
which connects with the capillary flow meter.
If the flow velocity is less than 1 × 10 − 9 m/s, shut down the pump
2.3. Error analysis and the outlet valve of buffer tank; open the core outlet valve; let the
fluid flow through the core at the residual pressure naturally for 24 h;
2.3.1. Temperature error record the final residual pressure, which is defined as minimum
In this experiment, the incubator is used to control the tempera- threshold pressure. Minimum threshold pressure gradient (Min
ture of buffer tank and the core holder. Under 20 °C, the range of tem- TPG) is minimum threshold pressure divided by the length of core.
perature fluctuation is about ± 0.5 °C. The viscosity change of distilled
water is about ±0.13%, and viscosity change of simulated oil is about 3.4. Experimental procedures
±0.41%.
The basic parameters were measured by steady-state “pressure
2.3.2. Measurement error of fluid volume difference–volume” in this experiment, and the experimental proce-
The fluid volume measured by capillary flow meter is greater than dures were as follows:
0.1 ml, with resolution of 0.0005 ml. Measurement error is 0.5%. Mea-
surement time is greater than 15 min, with resolution of 0.01 s. Mea- (1). According to the experimental flow chart, connect the power
surement error of time is approximately 0.00005%. system, buffer tank, six-way valve, core holder, confining pres-
sure system, capillary flow meter and pipeline.
3. Experimental methods (2). Put the core into core holder; make sure the rubber tube is
close to the core using the confining pressure system.
3.1. Basic parameters measured (3). Except confining pressure system, open all the other valves,
pump the dynamic fluid into the buffer tank and drive the ex-
During the experiments, following data need to be recorded: inlet periment fluid into core holder; shut down the outlet valve on
pressure of the core holder, fluid volume, and residual pressure. the core holder when a small amount of liquid gets out.
(4). Make sure that the confining pressure is 2 MPa higher than the
3.2. Calculation of pseudo threshold pressure gradient inlet pressure of core holder; decrease the driving pressure
gradually and measure fluid volume by capillary flow meter
After one displacement, the curve of velocity–pressure gradient is when the inlet pressure of core holder is steady. Measure the
plotted. By epitaxial method, we can get the intersection between fluid volume three times under the same inlet pressure, and
straight line and pressure axis, which is defined as pseudo threshold the measurement time is no less than 20 min.
pressure gradient (Pseudo TPG). (5). Close the outlet valve of buffer tank and the valve of confining
pressure when the flow rate is less than 10 − 9 m/s; record the
pressure after 24 h.
Table 1
Property of natural cores in displacement experiment of simulated oil. 4. Results and analysis
Sample Core Porosity Length Diameter Area Permeability
number number 4.1. Flow characteristic in ultra-low permeability cores
(%) L (cm) D (cm) A (cm2) K (× 10− 3 μm2)

1 1–11/97-1-1 14.88 5.700 2.520 4.988 3.216 Fig. 2 shows the typical relationship between velocity and gradi-
2 1–11/97-2-1 14.45 5.692 2.516 4.972 2.744
ent in ultra-low permeability cores, which no longer follows Darcy's
3 1–12/97-1-1 12.57 5.760 2.510 4.948 1.400
4 1–74/86-2 15.45 6.110 2.521 4.993 1.119 law. In ultra-low permeability cores, the flow curve is a combination
5 1–41/97-2-1 11.96 5.619 2.515 4.966 0.750 of a straight line and a concave curve. When the pressure gradient
6 2–73/190-2 9.60 5.625 2.493 4.881 0.356 is greater than Pc, the velocity–pressure gradient curve is a straight
7 1–69/86-3 16.51 6.469 2.520 4.988 0.295
line, and its extrapolation has an intersection “G” with the pressure
8 1–70/86-3 15.90 6.523 2.521 4.992 0.277
9 2–9/38-2 11.43 6.545 2.515 4.969 0.222 axis, which is defined as pseudo threshold pressure gradient (Pseudo
10 1–82/86-2 14.05 6.376 2.524 5.003 0.121 TPG). When the pressure gradient is less than Pc, the velocity–pres-
11 2–7/38-1 15.01 6.572 2.520 4.988 0.108 sure gradient relationship is a concave curve, without passing
12 3–14 10.40 6.161 2.498 4.900 0.069 through the origin, and its intersection with the pressure axis is de-
13 3–10 7.90 6.099 2.501 4.914 0.040
fined as minimum threshold pressure gradient (Min TPG.). Compared
 B. Zeng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6 3

Fig. 1. Displacement flow chart for ultra-low permeability cores.

with the result from Darcy's law, flow rate is smaller in the ultra-low Pseudo TPG:
permeability cores under the same pressure gradient.
The results of displacement experiment show that (Fig. 3), the −0:9913
Simulated oil ð1:25 mPa
sÞTPGpseudoðoÞ ¼ 0:1266K ð1Þ
lower permeability leads to flow curve with stronger non-linearity
and wider pressure range of nonlinear flow. It's presumed that
there may be only nonlinear flow if the permeability or drawdown Simulated oil ð2:0 mPa
sÞTPGpseudoðoÞ ¼ 0:3067K
−1:009
ð2Þ
pressure is small enough.
−0:9672
Distilled water TPGpseudoðwÞ ¼ 0:5169K ð3Þ
4.2. Relationship between pseudo (minimum) TPG and permeability

Minimum TPG:
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between Pseudo (Min) TPG and per-
meability for different types of experimental fluid. The relationship of
−0:9509
Pseudo TPG and permeability is the same to that of Min TPG and per- Simulated oil ð1:25 mPa
sÞTPG minðoÞ ¼ 0:0305K ð4Þ
meability. The Pseudo (Min) TPG has small value in high permeability
cores in a slow trend; with the decreasing permeability, the Pseudo −0:9532
(Min) TPG increases gradually; when the permeability reaches a Simulated oil ð2:0 mPa
sÞTPG minðoÞ ¼ 0:0520K ð5Þ
lower limit, the Pseudo (Min) TPG would increase severely.
By data match, the relationship between Pseudo TPG versus per- −0:9497
Distilled water TPG minðwÞ ¼ 0:3056K ð6Þ
meability can be described as follows. It shows that: (1) the relation-
ship between threshold pressure gradient and permeability is a
power function with the power of about − 1; (2) The Pseudo TPG of If the concave curve is ignored for engineering calculation, the
distilled water is greater than that of the simulated oil under same flow curve can be simplified into a straight line not going through
permeability. the origin. The velocity–pressure gradient relationship in ultra-low
permeability cores can be expressed as:

ν ¼ a·gradp−bðgradp > GÞ ð7Þ

V
1.6E-06 K=3.216

non-linear K=0.295
Darcy
1.2E-06 K=0.108
velocity(m/s)

K=0.040
8.0E-07

Vc a
4.0E-07

0.0E+00
0 10 20 30 40
Gmin G Pc P/L dp/dl(MPa/m)

Fig. 2. Typical flow curve in ultra-low permeability cores. Fig. 3. Experiment results of simulated oil (1.25 mPa s).
4 B. Zeng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6

4
1.0

TPG(MPa/m) 3
TPG(min)

TPG(MPa/m)
Pseudo TPG
2 0.1

1
TPG(min)
Pseudo TPG

0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
K(10-3µm2) K(10-3µm2)
Simulated oil (1.25mPa·s)
10.0 10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
TPG(MPa/m)

TPG(MPa/m)
1.0
6.0
5.0
4.0 TPG(min)
3.0 Pseudo TPG 0.1

2.0 TPG(min)
Pseudo TPG
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
K(10-3µm2) K(10-3µm2)
Simulated oil (2mPa·s)
8 10

6
TPG(MPa/m)

TPG(MPa/m)

TPG(min)
Pseudo TPG
4 1

2
TPG(min)
Pseudo TPG
0 0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
K(10-3µm2) K(10-3µm2)
Distilled water
Fig. 4. Relationship between TPG and permeability.

The kinematics equation describing the fluid flow in ultra-low logarithmic coordinate, which verifies the validity of experimental
permeability reservoir is: results.

 
K G 4.3. Comparison of Pseudo (Min) TPG between different fluids
ν¼ 1− gradp ð8Þ
μ gradp
The theoretical research shows that high fluid viscosity will result
in large TPG, if there is no physical–chemical interaction between
Compare Eqs. (7) with (8), the following equation can be estab-
fluid and cores. Even though the viscosity of simulated oil
lished:
(1.25 mPa s) is greater than distilled water (0.83 mPa s), the Pseudo
(Min) TPG of distilled water is higher than that of simulated oil
logðGÞ ¼ − logðK Þ þ logðbμ Þ ð9Þ under same permeability. Ultra-low permeability cores contain high
content of clay mineral (Huang, 1998), such as Kaolinite, Illite, Mont-
It shows that, for the same fluid, the Pseudo TPG and permeability morillonite, Illite/Smectite mixed layer, which experiences serious
relationship is a straight line with a slope of −1 in double- expansion, dispersion and migration when encountering distilled
 B. Zeng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6 5

water (Faruk, 2003). Clay expansion will lead to reduction of pore 1.E+01
throat radius, porosity and permeability. Dispersed clay particles
would block the throat during migration, which would cause irrevers- 8.E+00
ible loss of permeability (Table 3). Therefore, besides fluid viscosity,

Pseudo TPG(MPa/m)
the Pseudo (Min) TPG is related to physical and chemical properties
of fluids. 6.E+00

4.4. Relationship between Pseudo TPG and Min TPG

4.E+00
In log–log coordinate (Fig. 4), the straight lines of Pseudo TPG and simulated oil(2mPa·s)
Min TPG versus permeability nearly parallel to each other.. By numer- 2.E+00 simulated oil(1.25mPa·s)
ical matching of different fluids, the following regression functions
were formulated (Fig. 5, Eqs. (10), (11) and (12)). distilled water
0.E+00
2 0.0E+00 1.0E+00 2.0E+00 3.0E+00 4.0E+00
Simulated oil ð1:25 mPa
sÞTPGpseudo ¼ 4:4446TPG min R ¼ 0:9988 ð10Þ
TPG(min)(MPa/m)
2
Simulated oil ð2:0 mPa
sÞTPGpseudo ¼ 7:0209TPG min R ¼ 0:9930 ð11Þ
Fig. 5. Relationship between pseudo TPG and minimum TPG for different types of fluid.

2
Distilled water TPGpseudo ¼ 1:7411TPG min R ¼ 0:9960 ð12Þ
concave curve under lower pressure gradient. For the same fluid,
lower permeability will result in flow with stronger nonlinearity.
It shows a linear relationship between Pseudo TPG and Min TPG
3. The Pseudo (and Min) TPG exists widely in ultra-low permeability
for the above fluid. Definition of nonlinear factor: the ratio of Pseudo
reservoirs. Experiment results by different types of fluid show that
TPG to Min TPG for the same fluid. Therefore, the relationship is de-
the Pseudo (Min) TPG versus permeability present power function
scribed as follows:
with power of − 1 approximately.
1 4. Nonlinear factor is defined to reflect the characteristics of non-
TPGpseudo ¼ f ·TPG min or TPG min ¼ ·TPGpseudo ð13Þ linear flow. Larger nonlinear factor means the nonlinear flow
f
covers a wider pressure gradient region.
where, f is nonlinear factor.
Nonlinear factor reflects pressure gradient region of the nonlinear
flow in ultra-low permeability cores. Larger nonlinear factor means Nomenclature
the nonlinear flow covers a wider pressure gradient region, especially K permeability, 10 − 3 μm 2
for lower permeability reservoir; if the nonlinear factor is zero, non- G threshold pressure gradient, MPa/m
linear flow no longer exists, and Darcy's law can be used. μ fluids viscosity, mPa s
Comparison shows that the nonlinear factor of simulated oil is gradp pressure gradient, MPa/m
higher than that of distilled water, that is, the high viscosity will re- v fluid velocity, m/s
sult in wide pressure gradient range of nonlinear flow. If the non-
linear factor is obtained from one oilfield, the Min TPG in adjacent
reservoir can be calculated with Eq. (13). First, the Pseudo TPG of Acronyms
the adjacent reservoir can be obtained through experiment or TPG Threshold pressure gradient
Eq. (1), if the permeability is well known; Second, the nonlinear fac-
tor f in the adjacent reservoir can be obtained from the given reser-
voir (Eq. (13)); Third, the Min TPG in adjacent reservoir can be Acknowledgements
calculated with the known Pseudo TPG and TPGmin equation
Funding by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
5. Conclusions No. 90210019) is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the authors
acknowledge the technical and scientific assistance and helpful dis-
1. It is accurate to use capillary flow meter measuring fluid volume in cussions with Dr Shijun Huang (China University of Petroleum,
the nonlinear flow experiment. China).
2. In ultra-low permeability cores, flow characteristic does not follow
Darcy's law. The relationship between velocity and pressure gradi-
References
ent presents straight line with higher pressure gradient, and
Basak, P., 1977. Non-Darcy flow and its implications to seepage problem. J. Irrigat.
Drain. Div., Am. Soc. Civ Eng. 103–459.
Table 3 Faruk, Civan, 2003. Reservoir formation damage: fundamentals, modeling, assessment,
Typical problems caused by authigenic clay minerals. and mitigation. Reprinted in Chinese translation by Yang Fengli Petroleum Indus-
try Press, Beijing. 505pp.
Minerals Surface area Typical problems Gavin, Longmuir, 2004. Pre-Darcy flow: a missing piece of the improve oil recovery
(m2/gm) puzzle? SPE 89433.
Han, Xiaomei, Wang, Enzh, Liu, Qingjie, 2004. Non-Darcy flow of single-phase water
Kaolinite 20 Rupture, dispersion, migration and accumulation through low permeability rock. J. Tsinghua Univ. 44 (6), 804–807.
in pore throat, causing serious plug and Huang, Yanzhang, 1998. Flow Mechanism in Low Permeability Reservoir. Petroleum
permeability reduction Industry Press, Beijing. 186 pp.
Illite 100 Plug throat with the other fines; clay swelling Jiang, Laize, 2004. Saturation study of movable fluid in low-permeability reservoir [J].
caused by potassium leaching Spec. Oil Gas Reservoirs 11 (2), 75–77.
Montmorillonite 700 Water sensitivity, micro-porosity and Kutilek, M., 1972. Non-Darcian flow of water in soil–laminar region: a review. Funda-
permeability reduction caused by swelling mentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media. Elsevier Publishing Company,
Illite/Smectite 100–700 Broken up into lumps; form bridge plug, causing Amsterdam, p. 327.
Liu, Jianjun, Liu, Xiangui, Hu, Yaren, 2003. Study on nonlinear seepage of rock of low
mixed layer permeability reduction
permeability. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 22 (4), 556–561.
6 B. Zeng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 80 (2012) 1–6
Lv, Chengyuan, Wang, Jian, Sun, Zhigang, 2002. An experimental study on starting
pressure gradient of fluids flow in low permeability sandstone porous media. Pet.
Explor. Dev. 29 (2), 86–89.
Miao, Jianyu, Qu, Hongjun, Gao, Shengli, 2009. Research on the sandstone pore struc-
ture of Upper Paleozoic at Yanchang gas field in Ordos basin. J. Northwest Univ.
39 (5), 814–820.
Ren, Xiaojuan, 2006. Pore Structure of Low Permeability Sand Rock and Fluid Flowing
Characteristics. Northwest University, Xi'an. 272pp.
Swartzendruber, D., 1962. Non-Darcy flow behavior in liquid saturated porous media.
J. Geophysics. Res. 67( (3), 5205–5213.
Wang, Weimin, Guo, Hekun, Ye, Chaohui, 2001. The evaluation of development potential
in low permeability oilfield by the aid of NMR movable fluid detecting technology.
Acta Petrolei Sin. 22 (6), 13–18.
Wang, Ruifei, Shen, Pingping, Ziqi, Song, Yang, Hua, 2009. Characteristics of micro-pore
throat in ultra-low permeability sandstone reservoir. Acta Petrolei Sin. 30 (4), 560–563.
Xu, Shaoliang, Yue, Xiangan, 2007. Experimental research on nonlinear flow character-
istics at low velocity. J. China Univ. Pet. 31 (5), 60–63.
Xu, Jianhong, Cheng, Linsong, Zhou, Ying, Ma, Lili, 2007. A new method for calculating kick-
off pressure gradient in low permeability reservoirs. Pet. Explor. Dev. 34 (5), 594–597.
Yan, Qinglai, 1990. Experimental study of flow characteristics with single-phase fluid
in low-permeability reservoir. J. Xi'an Shiyou Univ. 5 (2), 1–6.
Yan, Qinglai, 1993. Flow mechanism of low permeability reservoir. Development Tech-
nology of Low Permeability Oil Field. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, p. 405.
Yang, Zhengming, Miao, Sheng, Liu, Xiangui, Huang, Dongmei, Qi, Chenchen, 2007. Per-
centage parameter of the movable fluid in ultra-low permeability reservoir and its
application. J. Xi'an Shiyou Univ. 22 (2), 96–99.