彭水地区龙马溪组页岩甲烷等温吸附模型对比研究

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the simulation effects of different isothermal adsorption models on isothermal adsorption experiments and better describe the adsorption rule of shale methane, isothermal adsorption experiments were carried out on seven core samples from well PY1 in southeast of Sichuan Basin. The experimental results showed that the maximum excess adsorption amount was positively correlated with the organic matter content, and the maximum correlation coefficient was 0.859 4, while it was negatively correlated with clay minerals. The experimental results were simulated by different models. The simulation results of different models were quite different. Among them, the correlation coefficient fitted by the Langmuir model was the best, while the maximum excess adsorption amount obtained by the SDR model was the largest. Followed by that was the fixed Langmuir model. Both the SDR model and the modified Langmuir model had corrected the excess adsorption amount of the experimental results, but from the correction results, the adsorption phase density obtained by the SDR model was the most reasonable. Finally, the fixed density correction Langmuir model and the SDR model were considered to describe the adsorption of methane in the shale more accurately, which could guide the calculation of the shale adsorption gas content better.

Key words: Pengshui area, Longmaxi formation, shale gas, isothermal adsorption, langmuir, SDR model

CLC Number:

TE311

TANG Jianxin. Comparative studies on methane isothermal adsorption models of shale of Longmaxi formation in Pengshui area[J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2019, 9(4): 73-78.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Table 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

References 27

[1]	ZHANG T, ELLIS G S, RUPPEL S C , et al. Effect of organic-matter type and thermal maturity on methane adsorption in shale-gas systems[J]. Organic geochemistry, 2012,47(6):120-131.
[2]	马永生, 蔡勋育, 赵培荣 . 中国页岩气勘探开发理论认识与实践[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2018,45(4):561-74.
[3]	张金川, 薛会, 张德明 , 等. 页岩气及其成藏机理[J]. 现代地质, 2013,17(4):466.
[4]	腾格尔, 申宝剑, 俞凌杰 , 等. 四川盆地五峰组—龙马溪组页岩气形成与聚集机理[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2017,44(1):69-78.
[5]	周秦, 田辉, 陈桂华 , 等. 页岩孔隙水中溶解气的主控因素与地质模型[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013,38(5):800-804.
[6]	陈铭, 胥云, 翁定为 . 页岩气藏游离气量和解吸气量计算方法研究[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2015,35(29):33-38.
[7]	PAN L, XIAO X, TIAN H , et al. Geological models of gas in place of the Longmaxi shale in Southeast Chongqing, South China[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2016,73:433-444.
[8]	高和群, 曹海虹, 丁安徐 , 等. 海相页岩和陆相页岩等温吸附特性及控制因素[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2013,24(6):1290-1297.
[9]	陈元千, 汤晨阳, 陈奇 . 等温吸附量计算方法的推导及应用[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2018,25(6):56-62.
[10]	TIAN H, LI T, ZHANG T , et al. Characterization of methane adsorption on overmature Lower Silurian—Upper Ordovician shales in Sichuan Basin, southwest China: Experimental results and geological implications[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2016,156:36-49.
[11]	张帆, 李相臣 . 不同吸附模型对容量法,重量法测定页岩吸附等温曲线的拟合分析[J]. 煤炭学报, 2016,41(S1):164-168.
[12]	端祥刚, 胡志明, 高树生 , 等. 页岩高压等温吸附曲线及气井生产动态特征实验[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2018,45(1):119-127.
[13]	赵天逸, 宁正福, 何斌 , 等. 页岩等温吸附理论模型对比分析[J]. 重庆科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2014,16(6):55-58.
[14]	武景淑, 于炳松, 李玉喜 . 渝东南渝页1井页岩气吸附能力及其主控因素[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2012,34(4):40-48.
[15]	张志英, 杨盛波 . 页岩气吸附解吸规律研究[J]. 实验力学, 2012,27(4):492-497.
[16]	李武广, 杨胜来, 徐晶 , 等. 考虑地层温度和压力的页岩吸附气含量计算新模型[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2012,23(4):791-796.
[17]	朱汉卿, 贾爱林, 位云生 , 等. 蜀南地区富有机质页岩孔隙结构及超临界甲烷吸附能力[J]. 石油学报, 2018,39(4):391-401.
[18]	沈瑞, 郭和坤, 胡志明 , 等. 页岩气高压吸附特征及其对储采规律的影响[J]. 地学前缘, 2018,25(2):204-209.
[19]	汪周华, 李赟, 郭平 , 等. 考虑过剩吸附量修正的页岩气超临界吸附模型[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2016,6(4):79-86.
[20]	周尚文, 王红岩, 薛华庆 , 等. 页岩过剩吸附量与绝对吸附量的差异及页岩气储量计算新方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2016,36(11):12-20.
[21]	BAE J S, BHATIA S K . High-pressure adsorption of methane and carbon dioxide on coal[J]. Energy & Fuels, 2006,20(6):2599-2607.
[22]	MURATA K, EL-MERRAOUI M, KANEKO K . A new determination method of absolute adsorption isotherm of supercritical gases under high pressure with a special relevance to density-functional theory study[J]. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2001,114(9):4196-4205.
[23]	MURATA K, MIYAWAKI J, KANEKO K . A simple determination method of the absolute adsorbed amount for high pressure gas adsorption[J]. Carbon, 2002,40(3):425-428.
[24]	杨峰, 宁正福, 孔德涛 , 等. 页岩甲烷吸附等温线拟合模型对比分析[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2013,41(11):86-89.
[25]	PINI R, OTTIGER S, BURLINI L , et al. Sorption of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen in dry coals at high pressure and moderate temperature[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010,4(1):90-101.
[26]	刘圣鑫, 钟建华, 马寅生 , 等. 柴东石炭系页岩微观孔隙结构与页岩气等温吸附研究[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2015,39(1):33-42.
[27]	周理, 吕昌忠, 王怡林 , 等. 述评超临界温度气体在多孔固体上的物理吸附[J]. 化学进展, 1999,11(3):221.

样品编号	层位	深度/m	TOC,%	黏土矿物,%	石英,%
PY1-2	龙一段	2 076.90	1.01	52.8	29.8
PY1-52	龙一段	2 084.85	1.80	49.3	27.7
PY1-62	龙一段	2 113.46	1.21	28.6	34.2
PY1-8	龙一段	2 129.21	1.35	41.6	32.6
PY1-76	龙一段	2 138.13	2.38	23.0	39.6
PY1-84	龙一段	2 153.42	3.58	25.1	57.6
PY1-85	龙一段	2 155.14	4.25	20.7	61.1

样品编号	SDR				Langmuir			密度修正的Langmuir				定密度修正的Langmuir
样品编号	n₀/ （cm³·g^-1）	ρ_abs/ （mg·cm^-3）	D/ （mol²·kJ^-2）	R²	n₀/ （cm³·g^-1）	p_l/ MPa	R²	n₀/ （cm³·g^-1）	ρ_abs/ （mg·cm^-3）	p_l /MPa	R²	n₀/ （cm³·g^-1）	p_l/ MPa	R²
PY1-2	1.78	249.43	0.014 2	0.98	1.33	1.81	0.972	1.76	332.55	2.83	0.981	1.64	2.54	0.98
PY1-52	2.65	175.55	0.013 6	0.952	1.88	1.02	0.928	2.54	230.57	1.76	0.962	2.18	1.35	0.954
PY1-62	2.51	288.26	0.010 1	0.947	1.91	1.14	0.963	1.98	1 766.52	1.22	0.963	2.23	1.53	0.958
PY1-8	1.23	441.91	0.009	0.994	0.95	1.43	0.999	0.95	79 955.61	1.43	0.999	1.17	2.11	0.987
PY1-76	2.98	304.32	0.011 5	0.978	2.30	1.61	0.981	2.41	1 467.52	1.75	0.982	2.76	2.19	0.979
PY1-84	3.59	378.54	0.011 7	0.983	2.85	2.18	0.984	2.88	7 019.91	2.22	0.984	3.49	3.00	0.981
PY1-85	4.01	413.06	0.009 3	0.971	3.13	1.49	0.965	3.13	46 058.05	1.49	0.965	3.77	2.09	0.958

Comparative studies on methane isothermal adsorption models of shale of Longmaxi formation in Pengshui area

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 27

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	YAO Hongsheng, WANG Wei, HE Xipeng, ZHENG Yongwang, NI Zhenyu. Development practices of geology-engineering integration in complex structural area of Nanchuan normal pressure shale gas field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 537-547.
[2]	LI Jingchang, LU Ting, NIE Haikuan, FENG Dongjun, DU Wei, SUN Chuanxiang, LI Wangpeng. Confidence evaluation of fractures seismic detection in shale gas formations on WY23 Pad in Weirong [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 614-626.
[3]	XIA Haibang, HAN Kening, SONG Wenhui, WANG Wei, YAO Jun. Pore scale fracturing fluid occurrence mechanisms in multi-scale matrix-fracture system of shale gas reservoir [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 627-635.
[4]	HOU Dali, HAN Xin, TANG Hongming, GUO Jianchun, GONG Fengming, SUN Lei, QIANG Xianyu. Primary research on expression of kerogen in Longmaxi Shale and its adsorption characteristics [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 636-646.
[5]	HAN Kening, WANG Wei, FAN Dongyan, YAO Jun, LUO Fei, YANG Can. Production forecasting for normal pressure shale gas wells based on coupling of production decline method and LSTM model [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 647-656.
[6]	XUE Gang, XIONG Wei, ZHANG Peixian. Genesis analysis and effective development of normal pressure shale gas reservoir: A case of Wufeng-Longmaxi shale gas reservoir in southeast margin of Sichuan Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 668-675.
[7]	LOU Zhanghua, ZHANG Xinke, WU Yuchen, GAO Yuqiao, ZHANG Peixian, JIN Aimin, ZHU Rong. Fluid response characteristics of shale gas preservation differences in Nanchuan and its adjacent blocks in Sichuan Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 451-458.
[8]	HU Zhijian, LI Shuxin, WANG Jianjun, ZHOU Hong, ZHAO Yulong, ZHANG Liehui. Productivity evaluation of multi-stage fracturing horizontal wells in shale gas reservoir with complex artificial fracture occurrence [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 459-466.
[9]	LIN Hun, SUN Xinyi, SONG Xixiang, MENG Chun, XIONG Wenxin, HUANG Junhe, LIU Hongbo, LIU Cheng. A model for shale gas well production prediction based on improved artificial neural network [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 467-473.
[10]	LIU Honglin,ZHOU Shangwen,LI Xiaobo. Application of PCA plus OPLS method in rapid reserve production rate prediction of shale gas wells [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 474-483.
[11]	LU Bi,HU Chunfeng,MA Jun. Influencing factors and countermeasures of inter-well interference of fracturing horizontal wells in Nanchuan shale gas field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 330-339.
[12]	QIU Xiaoxue,ZHONG Guanghai,LI Xiansheng,CHEN Meng,LING Weitong. CFD simulation of flow characteristics of shale gas horizontal wells with different inclination [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 340-347.
[13]	NIE Yunli, GAO Guozhong. Classification of shale gas “sweet spot” based on Random Forest machine learning [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 358-367.
[14]	ZHANG Longsheng,WANG Weiheng. Study and application of a high temperature foaming agent in anionic-nonionic system namely HDHP: A case study of shale gas wells in Dongsheng Block, Sichuan Basin [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(2): 240-246.
[15]	ZHAO Renwen,XIAO Dianshi,LU Shuangfang,ZHOU Nengwu. Comparison of reservoir characteristics between continental shale from faulted basin and marine shale under high-over mature stage: Taking Shahezi Formation in Xujiaweizi faulted basin and Longmaxi Formation in Sichuan Basin as an example [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 52-63.