Influence of Water Immersion on Pore System and Methane Desorption of Shales: A Case Study of Batu Gajah and Kroh Shale Formations in Malaysia

Al-Mutarreb, Ahmed; Jufar, Shiferaw Regassa; Abdulelah, Hesham; Padmanabhan, Eswaran

doi:10.3390/en11061511

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous investigations on shale gas adsorption have been performed, but dry samples are commonly used in the aforementioned studies. Water is omnipresent in shale reservoirs (Ahmad ang Haghighi, 2013;Liu and Wang, 2013;Fang et al, 2014;Li et al, 2016;Al-Mutarreb et al, 2018;Yang et al, 2020). The process from shale deposition to methane production is carried out in a water-bearing environment (Herrle et al, 2003;Al-Mutarreb et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water is omnipresent in shale reservoirs (Ahmad ang Haghighi, 2013;Liu and Wang, 2013;Fang et al, 2014;Li et al, 2016;Al-Mutarreb et al, 2018;Yang et al, 2020). The process from shale deposition to methane production is carried out in a water-bearing environment (Herrle et al, 2003;Al-Mutarreb et al, 2018). Moreover, wide applications of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas production show that more than half of the fracturing fluid remains in the reservoirs (Wattenbarger and Alkouh, 2013;Ghanbari and Dehghanpour, 2016;Zeng et al, 2020), leading to a significant impact on methane adsorption and desorption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental investigation of methane adsorption and desorption in water-bearing shale

Han

Fang

et al. 2020

Capillarity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane adsorption and desorption in shale can significantly be affected by water due to the water-bearing depositional environment of shale and the application of hydraulic fracturing technology in shale gas production. The characteristics of shale gas adsorption and desorption are comprehensively affected by the temperature, pressure, and especially, the water content in the reservoir. To further explore the impact of water on shale gas adsorption and desorption, the adsorption-desorption experiments of methane in waterbearing shale at different temperatures and different pressures are performed. Afterward, the adsorption behavior and desorption hysteresis are characterized by employing the Langmuir model and Langmuir+λ model. Finally, the ways of the pressure, temperature, and water combinedly affect shale gas adsorption behavior and desorption hysteresis are analyzed. The results show that adsorption and desorption of methane in the water-bearing shale are irreversible, which are consistent with the Langmuir model and the Langmuir+λ model, respectively. An increase in temperature will reduce adsorption and promote desorption, as an increase in temperature essentially enhances the thermal movement of methane molecules. Water lowers the adsorption and desorption of methane in shale, as the water molecules occupy the adsorption sites in organic pores and clay mineral pores in different ways. However, the effect of temperature and water content on adsorption is closely related to the pressure. The lower the pressure, the more significant the effect of temperature and water content. The combined effect analysis demonstrates that the impact of water on methane adsorption in shale is much more significant than that of the temperature. Still, desorption is simultaneously affected by both temperature and water content. As the pressure decreases in the desorption process, the desorption rate is dominantly affected by water when the pressure is lower than 8 MPa, and the desorption rate is aggressively affected by temperature when the pressure is at above 8 MPa.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental investigation of methane adsorption and desorption in water-bearing shale

Han

Fang

et al. 2020

Capillarity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The shales were characterized for their total organic carbon (TOC), mineralogy, topology, and pore system. Water retention was then examined in two ways; measurements of water uptakes [40] and by utilizing the U.S Bureau of Mine Method (USBM) [34] adsorption/desorption method. Table 1 lists the properties of the shales used in this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention of Hydraulic Fracturing Water in Shale: The Influence of Anionic Surfactant

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A tremendous amount of water-based fracturing fluid with ancillary chemicals is injected into the shale reservoirs for hydraulic fracturing, nearly half of which is retained within the shale matrix. The fate of the retained fracturing fluid is raising some environmental and technical concerns. Mitigating these issues requires a knowledge of all the factors possibly contributing to the retention process. Many previous studies have discussed the role of shale properties such as mineralogy and capillarity on fracturing fluid retention. However, the role of some surface active agents like surfactants that are added in the hydraulic fracturing mixture in this issue needs to be understood. In this study, the influence of Internal Olefin Sulfate (IOS), which is an anionic surfactant often added in the fracturing fluid cocktail on this problem was investigated. The effect on water retention of treating two shales “BG-2 and KH-2” with IOS was experimentally examined. These shales were characterized for their mineralogy, total organic carbon (TOC) and surface functional groups. The volume of retained water due to IOS treatment increases by 131% in KH-2 and 87% in BG-2 shale. The difference in the volume of retained uptakes in both shales correlates with the difference in their TOC and mineralogy. It was also inferred that the IOS treatment of these shales reduces methane (CH4) adsorption by 50% in KH-2 and 30% in BG-2. These findings show that the presence of IOS in the composition of fracturing fluid could intensify water retention in shale.

show abstract

“…Usually, an isotherm model describes adsorption equilibrium, providing useful information on pore structure and capacity (Shen et al 2018a, b). Many studies have focused on methane adsorption isotherms in shale in recent years (Abdulelah 2018;Abdulelah et al 2021;Al-Mutarreb et al 2018;Chen et al 2019a, b;Meng et al 2020;Pang et al 2021;Rexer et al 2020). However, little research has been done on water vapor adsorption on shale rocks and the feasibility of isotherm models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of benchtop humidity and temperature chamber in the measurement of water vapor sorption in US shales from Mancos, Marcellus, Eagle Ford and Wolfcamp formations

Abdulelah

Negash

Yaw

et al. 2022

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A benchtop humidity and temperature chamber was used to assess water vapor sorption in four US shale samples at 90 °C. Water sorption isotherms were measured at relative humidity ranging from 10 to 99% and temperature of 90 °C. Shale fractal properties were then evaluated, and capillary pressure (ranging from 1.70 to 386 MPa) was obtained using Kelvin relationship. The results show that Mancos shale, from the US, adsorbed more absorbed water due to its high clay concentration and low TOC. However, Wolfcamp shale, from the US, has the lowest TOC and clay concentration, adsorbing the lowest amount of water. There is little hysteresis between adsorption and desorption isotherms explaining water retention phenomenon in some shales. The obtained fractal dimension values ranged between 2.45 and 2.76 and average of 2.56 indicating irregular pore surface and complex pore structure. All shale sample's capillary curves were fitted to Brooks & Corey and van Genuchten models with nonlinear regression. The fitting coefficient, R2, which represents the proportion of variance for Brooks & Corey fits ranged from 0.90 to 0.97 for imbibition and 0.85 to 0.98 for drainage, while R2 for the van Genuchten model ranged from 0.94 to 0.99 for both imbibition and drainage. Thus, the proposed method can be used to measure capillary pressure–saturation relationships in gas shales.

show abstract

Influence of Water Immersion on Pore System and Methane Desorption of Shales: A Case Study of Batu Gajah and Kroh Shale Formations in Malaysia

Cited by 7 publications

References 46 publications

Experimental investigation of methane adsorption and desorption in water-bearing shale

Experimental investigation of methane adsorption and desorption in water-bearing shale

Retention of Hydraulic Fracturing Water in Shale: The Influence of Anionic Surfactant

Application of benchtop humidity and temperature chamber in the measurement of water vapor sorption in US shales from Mancos, Marcellus, Eagle Ford and Wolfcamp formations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About