About This Item
- Full TextFull Text(subscription required)
- Pay-Per-View PurchasePay-Per-View
Purchase Options Explain
Share This Item
The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database
AAPG Bulletin
Abstract
AAPG Bulletin, V.
DOI: 10.1306/07212019086
Experimental determination of porosity and methane sorption capacity of organic-rich shales as a function of effective stress: Implications for gas storage capacity
Garri Gaus,1 Reinhard Fink,2 Alexandra Amann-Hildenbrand,3 Bernhard M. Krooss,4 and Ralf Littke5
1Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, Energy & Mineral Resources Group (EMR), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; [email protected]
2Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, EMR, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; [email protected]
3Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, EMR, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; [email protected]
4Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, EMR, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; [email protected]
5Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, EMR, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Gas storage capacity estimates of shales are routinely assessed using laboratory data from unconfined methane sorption and porosity measurements. In this study, the stress dependence of the methane excess sorption capacity and specific pore volume are investigated simultaneously. Experiments were performed on dry core plugs (Cambrian–Ordovician Alum, Jurassic Bossier, Late Cretaceous Eagle Ford, and Jurassic Kimmeridge shales) at 30°C under controlled confining stress up to 40 MPa and gas pressures up to 20 MPa.
Increasing overburden stress results in a significant decrease of both specific pore volume and excess sorption capacity. The stress sensitivity of the specific pore volume was most prominent for the total organic carbon (TOC)–rich Kimmeridge sample (45% TOC) and further decreased in the order of Bossier, Eagle Ford, and Alum. Stress dependence of the methane excess sorption capacity, expressed as percentage reduction at 40-MPa overburden as compared to unconfined conditions, decreases in the order Eagle Ford (∼56%), Bossier (∼30%), Kimmeridge (∼14%), and Alum (∼5%). Although the decrease of specific pore volume is definitely caused by poroelastic compression, the mechanism(s) leading to the reduction of excess sorption capacity with stress require further investigation.
Gas storage calculations show that routine methods based on unconfined data may grossly overestimate the total storage capacity. In this scenario, at 2500-m depth, the total gas storage capacity will be overestimated by 5% for the Alum, 28% for the Bossier, 18% for the Eagle Ford, and 28% for the Kimmeridge if the stress dependent reduction of volume and sorptive storage capacity is not considered.
Pay-Per-View Purchase Options
The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.
Watermarked PDF Document: $14 | |
Open PDF Document: $24 |
AAPG Member?
Please login with your Member username and password.
Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].