The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

URTeC: 1891403

Compositional Modeling of the Diffusion Effect on EOR Process in

Fractured Shale Oil Reservoirs by Gas Flooding
Tao Wan, James Sheng, Marshall Watson, Texas Tech University
Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1891403
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August 2014.
The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Summary
Gas injection is considered as an effective recovery process that has been widely used in the worldwide. There
are limited pilot field projects conducted on EOR process by gas injection in shale oil reservoirs. Although a lot of
studies have been made on gas injection in tight gas or oil reservoirs, it is not clear to the public what the main
recovery mechanism is in shale oil reservoirs. Diffusion is considered as an important factor in the oil recovery
process in fractured shale reservoirs. Most of the current studies on diffusion are performed in a way that fixes the
producing pressure equal to the initial reservoir or core pressure. In order to study the diffusion effect, the
convective displacement is eliminated or minimized. In this paper, the role of diffusion on improving oil recovery in
fractured Eagle Ford shale oil reservoirs is discussed.
Hoteit and Firoozabadi (2009) investigated the diffusion effect on recovery performance in a fractured
gas/condensate reservoir. Their simulation results showed that molecular diffusion has a significant effect on gas
recovery if the reservoir pressure is below the minimum miscible pressure. Modeling of the diffusion effect on
ultimate oil recovery in extensively fractured shale reservoir is crucial to the development of these marginal shale
oil/gas projects. Evaluation of the recovery contribution from diffusion will provide important insights into the
recovery mechanisms in intensely fractured shale gas/oil reservoirs. Currently, a majority of the diffusion models
were developed on the basis of the single-porosity model that demands tremendous grid refinement in intensely
fractured shale oil reservoirs. The grid refinement is necessary surrounding the fracture intersections that makes the
system become computationally expensive. In this paper, the matrix-matrix and matrix-fracture diffusion is coupled
into a dual permeability model to overcome the drawback of single-porosity model.
The simulation results indicate that the stimulated natural fractures are critical to enhancing oil recovery and well
productivity in shale oil reservoirs. Including diffusion effect in gas injection in fractured shale oil reservoirs
achieves higher oil production. The simulation results demonstrate that the enhanced oil recovery by gas injection
scheme in the Eagle Ford shale oil reservoir will benefit from matrix-matrix and matrix-fracture molecular diffusion,
varying with the injection rate, intensity of natural fractures and other factors.
Introduction
It is recognized that diffusion effect plays an important role in oil recovery by gas injection in fractured reservoirs
(Da Silva et al. 1989; Karimaie et al. 2007; Morel et al.1990). Ertekin et al. (1986) derived a slippage factor under
the assumption that the driving mechanisms exerted by the concentration and pressure field are acting in parallel.
The combination of Darcian flow velocity and molecular diffusion velocity yields a slippage factor that depends on
composition, pressure and saturation. Followed Ertekins work, a lot of successive studies on gas diffusion (Allan et
al. 2012; Florence et al. 2007; Javadpour 2009; Ozkan et al. 2010; Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant 2012; Shi et al.2013)

2
URTeC 1891403
used the dusty gas model (DGM) to model gas flow through nanoscale pores and throats based on the assumption
that overall flow rate is a linear combination of gas transport mechanisms. According to the second law of
thermodynamics, the system has the tendency towards equilibrium. The molecules are free to move from the high
concentration side to the low concentration side until equilibrium is reached. Ozkan et al. (2010) incorporated
Knudsen flow into the dual porosity formulation to simulate gas migration from matrix to fracture system.
Javadpour (2009) developed the concept and formulation of apparent gas permeability in shale by adding the
Knudsen diffusion and viscous forces as a total mass flux, similar to Ertekins model. Florence et al. (2007)
developed the microflow model for permeability prediction in low permeability gas sands. They developed a new
model to model gas slippage in low permeability rocks for a single point and steady-state measurement of
permeability by improving the Klinkenberg, Jones-Owens (1979) and Sampath-Keighin corrections (1981). Roy and
Raju (2003) stated that different flow regimes are dependent on the Knudsen number, as shown in Figure 1. They
modeled gas flow characteristics through microchannels and nanopores beyond the slip flow regime. They found
that in the case of nanopore systems where the macroscopic length scale becomes comparable to the fluid mean free
path, the rarefaction effects become more pronounced and eventually the continuum assumption breaks down.

Figure 1-Knudsen number regimes (Roy et al. 2003; Shi, et al. 2013).
A lot of efforts have been devoted to study the effect of diffusion on oil recovery scheme in fractured reservoirs
(Coats 1989; da Silva and Belery 1989; Darvish et al. 2006; Thomas et al.1991). The study of diffusion effect on
fluid flow dynamics in shale resource plays that have complex pore networks starts to draw operators attention
(Hildenbrand et al. 2011; Javadpour et al. 2007; Sakhaee-Pour & Bryant 2012; Schettler et al. 1989; Sigal & Qin
2008; Yuan et al. 2013). Most of the studies (Ghorayeb and Firoozabadi 2000; Hoteit et al. 2006, 2009, 2011; Jamili
2010) on numerical modeling of the diffusion role in fractured media used a single porosity, dual-continuum model
to simulate a naturally fractured reservoir. The fractures are set as high permeable blocks and fine grid blocks are
demanded surrounding the fractures. The construction of fracture-network requires to use very fine grid-block near
the fractures to accurately capture the rapid pressure, saturation changes and multi-phase flow effects surrounding
the fractures. The disadvantage of this approach is self-explanatory because it demands generating a large number of
refined grids and a huge amount of computing time. Hoteit and Firoozabadi (2009) presented a numerical simulation
model of molecular diffusion for gas injection in 10-m spacing of fracture network. It demands more than one day of
running time on a 2.5-GHz, Pentium 4 PC. It is almost impractical to use such a grid-refinement and multi-component
EOS model in a full-field simulation. We avoid the deficiency of the single-porosity diffusion model by using a dual
permeability model to represent fracture network that includes the diffusion transfer flux in it. The aim of
incorporating diffusion flow into dual permeability model is to significantly reduce the runtime but produce the
same accurate results as single-porosity diffusion model does. Coats (1989) proposed a fully implicit numerical
model for compositional simulation of fluid flow that includes the effect of diffusion in the dual-porosity model. He
solved the diffusion equation in 1D and extended this approach to compositional simulation. However, this model
only considered the diffusion flux between matrix and fracture. Matrix-matrix and fracture-fracture diffusion rates
were neglected. From the mass balance point of view, it is not a mathematically rigid model that can be derived

3
URTeC 1891403
from conservation equations. Jamili (2010) used a dual-continuum approach to study the fluid flow between the
fractures and the matrix blocks in naturally fractured reservoirs. The matrix is discretized into fine grids and the
fracture acts as the boundary of the matrix. It simply comprises of the matrix with four fractures surrounding it.
Many researchers (Alavian 2011; Moortgat et al. 2009) adopted the same method to explicitly model the fluid flow
between matrix and fracture. A lot of current studies on modeling the diffusion effect on gas injection in fractured
reservoirs used a single porosity model to explicitly represent the fracture network (Ghorayeb and Firoozabadi
(2000); Hoteit et al. 2006, 2009, 2011). In this paper, we coupled the diffusion equation into a dual permeability
model that can properly simulate the mass transfer in matrix-facture by including molecular diffusion.
Description of Mathematical Model
The species balance for component i in a nc-component hydrocarbon mixture is given by (Hoteit and Firoozabadi
2009; Jamili 2010) the following convection-diffusion equation:

j S jij + jij u j + J i , j = 0, i=1,...,nc j=o, g
t j
j
j


 


convective flux diffusion flux
accumulation

(1)

The velocity for each phase is described by Darcys law and the diffusion is described by Ficks law
kk





u j = rj p j + j g

j=o, g

J i , j = j S j Dij ij , i=1,...,n c ; j=o, g

(2)

(3)

The composition is constrained by

nc

ij

=1

(4)

i =1

Therefore, the governing matrix flow equation of the diffusion model can be expressed as:

j S jij + ( jij u j + J i , j ) + i , j ,mf = 0, i=1,...,nc j=o, g

t
j
m
j
m
j

(5)

The fluids flow conservation equation in the fracture:

j S jij + ( jij u j + J i , j ) i , j ,mf = 0, i=1,...,nc j=o, g
j
f
j
f
t j

(6)

The matrix-fracture transfer term can be obtained by modifying the equation proposed by Kazemi et al (1976).
Lenormand et al. (1998) developed a method to model the transfer of a component by diffusion between a fracture
and a matrix block as a function of fracture geometry and fluid velocity. The molar diffusive flux of a component is
calculated on the basis of Ficks law. In our work, the transfer of a component between matrix-fracture by diffusion
is simply described by Ficks law that preserves the same form as viscous displacement. Modeling of matrix-to-cleat
diffusion in the coal-bed methane adopts the same approach to simulate the diffusive mass flow rate of a species
(CMG, 2011).

4
URTeC 1891403
Where

krj j

jmf =

(p

jm

- p jf ) + j S j Dij ( jm jf ) j=o,g

(7)

p g = po + pcog

(8)

pw = po pcwo

(9)

kx

= 4

2
x

ky
2
y

kz

L2z

(10)

Equation 1 can be derived from the fundamental phase conservation equation (Lake, 1989). Jamili (2010) developed
the same mathematical model as Hoteits model to simulate diffusion and convection mechanisms for gas injection
in naturally fractured reservoirs. The advection-dispersion model governing transport of solute and solvent in the
fracture and matrix is discussed extensively in chemical engineering literature (Benitez 2009; Krishna and Standart
1976; Trivedi and Babadagli 2009). The role of diffusion is crucial to the transport of components from a tight
matrix to a fracture network in shale gas or oil reservoirs.

Model Validation
Our numerical simulation results from the developed model are benchmarked using experimental data and published
numerical simulation results. Then, simulation results of gas diffusion in nanopores are presented and compared
with conventional numerical model by Hoteit and Firoozabadi (2009). Kovscek et al. (2008) presented a series of
experimental results of using CO2 injection to enhance oil recovery in low permeability shale rocks (0.02-1.3 mD).
Initially, the shale reservoir core sample is saturated with live oil at 1300 psi. Then, it is naturally depleted to a
pressure of 350-psi. Two CO2 injection modes followed the primary depletion. Countercurrent flow and cocurrent
injection schemes were employed to evaluate the oil recovery potential after primary production. The core sample is
placed in the horizontal direction. Gravity segregation effect is not considered in their study. In the countercurrent
mode, CO2 is flushed through the inlet at constant pressure while the outlet closed. The injected carbon dioxide in
the fracture diffuses into the porous matrix to displace oil. The experimental setup is designed to evaluate the oil
recovery under a zero pressure gradient driven in the countercurrent mode. The experimental results for 0.023 mD
shale rock sample showed no incremental oil production during the countercurrent flooding stage. Cocurrent flow is
performed at an injection pressure at which viscous displacement becomes the dominant oil recovery mechanism.
The injection is carried out for enough time to achieve a uniform pressure equal to the injection process pressure
(Kovscek et al. 2008). Later, Vega et al. (2010) tried to simulate the miscible gas injection process (1.32 mD shale
sample) including countercurrent and cocurrent flow modes. But the individual experimental recovery process was
unable to be matched. There is huge gap between their simulation results with experimental data. They used a
Carman-Kozeny type of porosity-permeability correlation to generate the permeability distribution of the shale rock
sample. There is no evidence to support that the approach they used can represent the fracture and matrix
permeability distribution in shale. The fact that there is significant deviation between their simulation results and
experimental results is an indication that the complexity of fracture network in shale rocks is not fully characterized
by using this correlation. In this paper, we will use a dual permeability model to simulate the experimental results of
gas injection in ultra-tight siliceous shale of 0.023 mD presented in Kovsceks work. The matrix permeability of the
sample is 0.023 mD. The fracture permeability used in dual permeability model is 1 mD. The lumped reservoir
fluids pseudo-component description is given by Vega et al. (2010). Sigmund (1976) method is used to model the
molecular diffusion and calculate binary diffusion coefficient between component i and j in the mixture.

5
URTeC 1891403

Table 1-Core sample properties

Property
Sample
Length, cm
7.3
Diameter, cm
3.2
Matrix Permeability, mD 0.023
Porosity
0.3
Initial pressure, psi
1400
CO2 injection
Yes

40

Oil Recovery, %

35
Primary depletion

30

Cocurrent stage
Countercurrent

25
20

Experimental Results

15

Simulation Results

10
5
0
1

10

100

Figure 2-Comparative cumulative oil recovery

Figure 2 shows the cumulative oil recovery of the simulation model contrasting with the experimental data at
depletion, countercurrent flow and cocurrent flow stages. Results produced by the model are in good agreement with
the experimental results. There is little noticeable oil recovery from the countercurrent flow stage because the
production is performed in a short span of time and there is no viscous displacement and gravity drainage assisted
recovery. Another reason may be in that the fluid is injected at a high flow velocity that there is insufficient
residence time for diffusion to equalize concentration within each pore space. Most of the oil production is achieved
during pressure-driven stage.
The model is also compared with Hoteits numerical model. In Hoteits example, the reservoir fluids are simplified
that only contains C1/C3 mixture. Methane is injected as a solvent at a rate of 1.3x10-4 pore volume per day to
displace C1/C3 mixture. The reservoir domain is assumed to be a 2D cross section with 500-m length and 100-m
height, as shown in Figure 3. In Hoteits model, different sizes of matrix blocks (100x10, 10x10 and 10x5) were
used to construct the fracture-networks that have different fracture spacing. The natural fracture spacing is adjusted
by varying the sizes of matrix blocks. The fracture aperture is equal to 0.5 mm. Grid refinement is needed for the
area surrounding the fractures. The drawback of this approach is that it would require tremendous number of grid
blocks when the fracture-network spacing is smaller. The most important advantage of a dual permeability model
over a single-porosity model is that it does not require detailed grid-refinement because the natural fractures are
incorporated into the model. For example, if the spacing of fracture-network is 10-m, we can use 10mx10m (32.8 ft
x32.8 ft) blocks in which two perpendicularly crossed 0.001-ft wide fractures (approximately actual fracture width)
are assumed to exist which runs through each 32.8ft x32.8 ft block. Therefore, the input fracture porosity in the dual
permeability model is 6.1E-05= (2xVfrac/Vblock). We reproduced the results in example 1 presented in Hoteits
simulation model. Methane is injected at the top of the right corner matrix blocks to displace C3 in the domain. The
fracture network spacing is 10-m apart away in both X and Z directions. We used 10 x 10 m grid-blocks in dual
permeability model that implies the fracture spacing is 10-m. The fracture porosity is 6.1E-05. We used the same
diffusion coefficients as Hoteit. They are in the range of 8.7 x 10-8 and 2.2 x 10-9 m2/sec in gas and oil phase,

6
URTeC 1891403
respectively. The bottom-hole flowing pressure at the production well is maintained equal to the initial reservoir
pressure to eliminate the viscous displacement caused by pressure gradient. The reservoir model setup probes
recovery by gas injection in fractured reservoirs under a zero pressure gradient. In this case, the gravity drainage and
diffusion flow becomes the dominated recovery mechanisms in fractured reservoirs.

C3 Recovery, fraction

Figure 3-2D single porosity model with 10 x 10-m matrix blocks

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Dual Perm-With Diffusion

Dual Perm-No Diffusion

Hoteit-Without Diffusion
Hoteit-With Diffusion

20

40

60

80

100

PVI, %
Figure 4- Comparative component C3 recovery of the dual permeability model with single porosity model

Our simulation results are in good agreement with the single porosity model that uses tremendous number of gridblock refinement, as shown in Figure 4. It takes only few minutes to simulate the test by using the dual permeability
model coupled with diffusion, while their model takes hours to run. Figure 4 clearly shows that diffusion contributes
to the recovery when in absence of pressure gradient driven convective transport.
Then, we investigated the importance of diffusion effect on fractured shale gas reservoirs. Rock and fluid properties
(relative permeabilities, phase behavior and grid-block distribution) were the same as used in the Hoteits model.
We simply modified the matrix permeability into 0.0001-mD. The C3 recovery with and without considering
diffusion effect from CO2 injection is presented in Figure 5. It achieved nearly 86% of C3 recovery due to
contribution of diffusion in CO2 injection process despite the nano permeable rocks and in absence of viscous
displacement. Figure 5 indicates that diffusion plays a crucial role for improving gas recovery in fractured shale
reservoirs. Similar observations of the importance of diffusion effects on shale gas production have been reported in
the literature (Hildenbrand et al. 2011; Javadpour et al. 2007; Sakhaee-Pour & Bryant 2012; Schettler et al. 1989;
Sigal & Qin 2008; Yuan et al. 2013). Javadpour et al. (2009) developed an apparent permeability by combining gas
mass transfer together owing to both diffusion and convection to characterize the gas permeability in shale.

C3 Recovery, fraction

URTeC 1891403
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Without Diffusion in Shale

With Diffusion in Shale

20

40

60

80

100

PVI, %
Figure 5-Comparative C3 recovery in shale gas reservoirs
Simulation Results and Discussion
The main objective of this paper is to model the dispersive-convective flux through nanopores in shale oil reservoirs
during gas injection process using the dual permeability model coupled with diffusion. The reservoir fluid and rock
properties used in this model are based on the published data in Eagle Ford shale as previously used (Wan et al.
2014). The initial reservoir oil compositions are shown in Table 2 which represents light oil. The basic reservoir
properties are presented in Table 3. The injected solvent is CO2. The dimension of the shale reservoir is 2000-ft long
1000-ft wide 200-ft thick. The natural fracture network is assumed to be contained within an orthogonal system
of continuous, uniformly spaced and constant width. Two perpendicularly crossed 0.001-ft wide fractures
(approximately actual fracture width) are assumed to exist which runs through the 100ft x100 ft block. Therefore,
the average natural fracture porosity is 0.00002=(2xVfrac/Vblock). The effective fracture permeability is assumed to be
4 mD.

Components
C1
C3
C6
C10-15
C15-20
C20+

Initial
Comp.
0.5
0.03
0.07
0.2
0.15
0.05

Table 2- Peng-Robinson EOS Fluid Description

Pc (atm)
Tc (k)
Acentric Fac.
MW
45.44
41.94
29.73
20.69
13.61
11.02

190.6
369.8
507.4
617.7
705.6
766.7

0.013
0.152
0.300
0.488
0.65
0.85

16.0
44.1
86.2
142.2
206
282

Vc
0.0998
0.2005
0.3698
0.6297
1.0423
1.3412

Table 3-Reservoir properties for the model input

Initial Reservoir Pressure
6425 psia
Reservoir Temperature
160 Fo
Saturation Pressure
2302 psia
Rock Compressibility
5.0E-06
Porosity
6%
Permeability of shale matrix
100 nano-Darcy

The producer is subject to minimum bottom-hole pressure (BHP) constraint of 2500 psi and is produced for 2000
days (approximately 5 years) as the natural depletion. Then, we start gas injection to initiate the secondary recovery
process. The injection well is constraint to a constant rate at a one pore volume per 10000 days. There was no
observation of significant pressure build-up under this injection rate. The average reservoir pressure is fairly close to

8
URTeC 1891403
the bottom-hole flowing pressure at production well, as shown in Figure 6. It was attributed to gas channeling
through high permeability fracture-network, leaving low permeable shale matrix unswept. The total mass flux is
owing to both advective and dispersive transport. In this case, the convective flux for a component is negligible
because of insufficient pressure drawdown. Molecular diffusion due to compositional differences between matrix
and fracture tends to become the main recovery mechanism. Hydrodynamic dispersion includes both molecular
diffusion and mechanical dispersion. We only considered the molecular diffusion in this paper. The molecular
binary diffusion coefficients between component i and j in the mixture are calculated by using Sigmund (1976)
method. The dispersion shares the same form as the diffusion term. Molecular diffusion is independent of the
direction or magnitude of flow. The effect of injection rate on diffusion was considered in this paper.
7000
6000

Average reservoir pressure

Pressure, psi

5000
Production well BHP

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time, days
Figure 6-Average reservoir pressure (1PVI/5000 days)
The case of one pore volume injection per 10000 days is compared with an injection rate at one pore volume per
5000 days to evaluate the impact of injection rate on diffusion. Figure 7 shows that diffusion plays a critical role in
improving oil recovery in gas injection process when well production from convective flow is immaterial. One can
notice that the oil recovery from natural depletion is 8% at a zero pore volume of gas injection (see Figure 7). It is
important to notice that the oil recovery by including diffusion effect is much higher than the case without
considering diffusion in shale oil reservoirs. Without considering diffusion, the injected gas break-through occurs
via fracture-network. In the case of fast injection rate and relatively slow injection rate, the diffusion enhanced oil
recovery is impacted by the injection rate. For the slow injection rate, there is sufficient residence time for the
injected CO2 to contact with matrix oil to strip the hydrocarbon components which results in higher oil recovery. In
highly fractured shale reservoirs, diffusion becomes the dominant recovery mechanism in the case of in absence of
convective flow driven.

9
URTeC 1891403
25

Without Diffusion, 1PVI/10000D

Diffusion in Shale, 1PVI/5000D
Diffusion in Shale, 1PVI/10000D
Without Diffusion, 1PVI/5000D

Oil Recovery, %

20
15
10
5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
1
PVI, %
Figure 7 -The effect of different injection rates on oil recovery
The importance of diffusion effect on oil recovery is showed in Figure 8. The production of oil rate by including the
diffusion overrides the one without diffusion. It is seen from Figure 8 that without molecular diffusion effect there is
no observable oil rate produced in fractured shale oil reservoirs. The injected CO2 preferentially flows through the
highly conductive fracture-network, thus bypassing the oil in the shale matrix. It also shows there is less CO2
content in the composition of the produced gas for the diffusion case. It reflected the injected CO2 in the fracture
diffused into the matrix and dissolved into oil. The diffused CO2 will expel and extract light and intermediate oil in
the matrix which results in lower CO2 content in produced back gas than the case without considering diffusion.
When CO2 is injected in intensely fractured shale oil reservoirs, CO2 will disperse through the fractures to the matrix
(as shown in Figure 9) and will be dissolved in the matrix oil resulting in oil swelling and decreasing oil viscosity.
The enhanced oil recovery potential due to Fickian molecular diffusion is more pronounced when CO2 is injected in
dense fracture spacing of fracture-network, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows that diffusion has a marked
effect on improving oil recovery in densely fractured reservoirs. The well recovery from the fracture-network with
50-ft fracture spacing is approximately 35% while oil recovery from 100-ft fracture spacing of fracture-network is
22%. When CO2 is injected in intensely fractured shale oil reservoirs, gas has more contact area with the matrix
resulting in increasing gas diffusion.
100
No diffusion-Oil rate

Oil rate, stb/d

350

80

Diffusion-Oil rate

300

No Diffusion-CO2 content

250

60

Diffusion-CO2 content

200

40

150
100

20

50
0

0
0

2000

4000

6000
Time, days

8000

10000

12000

Figure 8-Molecular diffusion impact on oil rate and produced CO2 back

CO2 content in produced

gas, %

400

10
URTeC 1891403

Figure 9-CO2 mole fraction in the shale matrix oil (No diffusion (left) and diffusion (right) )
40
Without Diffusion, 100-ft

Oil Recovery, %

35

Without Diffusion, 50-ft

30

Diffusion, 100-ft

25

Diffusion, 50-ft

20
15
10
5
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Time, %

Figure 10-Impact of fracture spacing on diffusion

The injected CO2 preferentially invades high permeable fracture-network (4-mD) that leaves behind large amounts
of unswept matrix oil. The high permeability contrast between the fracture and matrix promotes early CO2
breakthrough from the injector to the producer in fractured reservoirs. Without taking into account the diffusion of
CO2 through the fracture to matrix, nearly all injected CO2 was produced back without any oil recovered in gas
injection process (As shown in Figure 8 without diffusion case). Another disadvantage of CO2 flooding is the
unfavorable mobility ratio. The viscosity of CO2 (0.04 cp) at reservoir condition is far below the oil viscosity. The
viscosity contrast leads to CO2 viscous fingering through the theft zones that results in decreasing of displacement
efficiency. Gas flooding in vertical wells is not a good candidate for producing intensely fractured shale oil
reservoirs. Since gas channeling through the highly conductive fracture conduits results in CO2 bypassing most of
the matrix oil, a lower ultimate oil recovery is expected.

11
URTeC 1891403

Figure 11-Interstitial velocity of oil phase

row)

Figure 12-Peclet number in oil phase in the matrix (last

Earlier studies of multicomponent diffusion in fractured reservoirs used the Peclet number as a measure of the
relative importance of advection to diffusion (Lake, 1989; Hoteit and Firoozabadi, 2009). The Peclet number is
defined as the ratio of convective to dispersive transport:
N Pe =

uL

(11)

The lower the Peclet number, the diffusion becomes more important. One noticeable finding of gas injection in shale
reservoirs is that the interstitial velocity of oil phase in the shale matrix is considerably lower than that of in the
conventional reservoirs. The low oil phase velocity is attributed to the ultra-low permeability in shale. The
maximum oil interstitial velocity is located at the injector or producer while it decreases away from the sources, as
shown in Figure 11. The Peclet number of oil phase in the matrix ranged from 4.5E-05 to 0.001. Figure 12 shows
the Peclet number of oil phase in the matrix for the cells of the last layer in Figure 11. The Peclet number of oil
phase in the fracture is approximately five orders of magnitude larger than that of the shale matrix in this case.
Perkins and Johnson (1963) have studied the influence of diffusion and dispersion on miscible displacement
processes. They found that when Peclet number is less than 0.02, the transport is controlled by diffusion. In our
simulation model, the Peclet number of oil phase in the shale matrix is essentially less than 0.02. These observations
tend to confirm the idea that diffusion plays an important role in recovering oil from nano-scale shale oil reservoirs.
Gas flooding applied in two staggered zipper fractured horizontal wells
We examined the diffusion effect on gas flooding efficiency in liquid-rich shale that is implemented in two
hydraulically zipper fractured horizontal wells. Considering that CO2 EOR process is limited by the cost and
availability of CO2 in the field, it is favorable to use natural gas as the injection gas. The composition of injector
fluid can be specified as 70% C1, 20% C3 and 10% C6. Reinjection of produced gas into existing reservoirs is an
economically available avenue to perform EOR projects due to low natural gas prices. We applied modified
staggered zipper frac technique to stimulate two adjacent horizontal wells to maximize the exposure of reservoir
rock. Although the laterals expose more of the nano-Darcy permeable shale rock, the desired result in hydraulic
fracture stimulation is to maximize coverage around each lateral. Two horizontal wells drilled through the reservoir.
The two horizontal wells are closely spaced, one adjacent to the other, forming a gas injector and producer pair, as
shown in Figure 13. An effective fracture permeability of 0.04 mD is used to simulate the natural fractures in the
stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). The hydraulic fracture conductivity is 83.3 mD-ft. The hydraulic fracture halflength is 250-ft. The horizontal well is stimulated with 10 transverse hydraulic fractures at the spacing of 200-ft
apart from each other. The LS-LR-DK (logarithmically spaced, locally refined and dual permeability) model is used
to accurately simulate the fluid flow in fractured shale oil reservoirs. The LGR coupled to standard DK grids is used

12
URTeC 1891403
to represent the hydraulic fractures owing to the high permeability contrast between fracture and matrix. Better
discussions about the advantages of this LS-LR-DK model can be found in the literature (Rubin 2010; Wan et al.
2013).

Figure 13-The horizontal well pair perforated and stimulated in a staggered pattern

Figure 14-Simulation unit

35

35

30

30

25

25
Oil Recovery, %

Oil Recovery, %

The producer is subject to minimum bottom-hole pressure constraint (BHP) of 2000 psi. Our operational bottomhole flowing pressure is close to the minimum miscibility pressure (2180 psi) requirement for injected solvent to
achieve miscible flooding with reservoir oil. We specified the solvent injection rate at 1 PVI/10000 days for injector
and the maximum allowed bottom-hole injection pressure is 7000 psi. Another similar case with an injection rate at
1 PVI/5000 days is also simulated to investigate the effects of injection rate and diffusion on oil recovery in
multistage hydraulically fractured horizontal wells. In our simulation model, we only simulate a half unit of the
hydraulic fracture controlled volume based on the symmetry of fluid flow, as shown in Figure 14. The red lines
represent hydraulic fractures. We performed grid sensitivity study and found that further grid refinement did not
affect the numerical results.

20
15
10

15
10

No Diffusion, 1PVI/10000D
Diffusion, 1PVI/5000D
Diffusion, 1PVI/10000D
No Diffusion, 1PVI/5000D

20

No Diffusion, 1PVI/10000D
Diffusion, 1PVI/5000D
Diffusion, 1PVI/10000D
No Diffusion, 1PVI/5000D

5
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

PVI

Figure 15- Oil recovery vs. PVI

4000

8000
Time, days

12000

16000

Figure16-Oil recovery vs. time

Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the effect of diffusion and injection rate on recovery. One can observe that the
diffusion still plays a role in improving oil recovery at two hydraulically fractured horizontal wells flooding case.
With the diffusion, the velocity of a component is owing to the summation of both convection and diffusion
velocities. Vapor-vapor diffusion is about tenfold faster than vapor-liquid diffusion (da Silva and Belery 1989).

13
URTeC 1891403
Thus, the injected gas will diffuse from the fracture to the matrix with a velocity considerably higher than the
velocity of crude oil being flushed out by convective flow. The injected gas will pick up the intermediate
hydrocarbon components from the crude oil and get enriched as it moves through the reservoir. The mass transfer of
middle intermediates of crude oil into solvent will result in the enriched solvent condenses into the crude oil in the
downstream (Zick, 1986). Therefore, it recovers more oil with diffusion. In terms of one pore volume injection, the
scenario with the injection rate at 1PVI per 10000 days achieved higher oil recovery than 1PVI per 5000 days
(Figure 15). If the injected fluids flow at a high interstitial velocity through the porous medium, the oil recovery due
to diffusion will be impaired because there is less residence time for fluids in high concentration side to diffuse in
low concentration pore spaces (Perkins and Johnston, 1963). However, Figure 16 shows that higher oil injection
rate can obtain higher oil recovery at the given injection time because it requires more volumes of solvent injection.
The increased oil recovery due to diffusion by using lower injection rate at a given pore volume injection has raised
the consideration on the trade-offs between the potential economic gains and maximization of ultimate recovery of
hydrocarbons. We performed an economic analysis to evaluate the potential economic benefits from these two
injection rates. The study assesses shale oil production in two different injection schemes (1PVI/10000D and
1PVI/5000D) in order to determine how to extract shale oil economically in the field. Well economics vary greatly
across the basin as a function of productivity, geology, drilling and stimulation cost. Typically, in unconventional
reservoirs, it will cost approximately $4 million to drill a horizontal well and $3 million to stimulate and complete it.
Table 4 presents the input economic parameters for calculating the NPV. All capital expenditures occur in the year
of first production. The capital investment in shale oil production includes drilling, completion and stimulation
costs. The operating expenditure is assumed to be $4/boe. The oil prices are subject to many factors. Oil prices are
assumed to be flat over the life cycle of production ($100 per barrel). Royalty is levied on gross production at a rate
of 20%.
Table 4-Required inputs for the NPV calculations
Economic Parameters Unit
Value
Discount rate
fraction/yr
10%
Working interest
fraction/yr
100%
Royalty rate
fraction/yr
20%
Net revenue interest
fraction/yr
80%
Severance tax
fraction
4.6%
Ad valorem tax
fraction
3%
CAPEX, $
$MM
14 (2 wells)
OPEX, $
$/boe
4
Oil price, $
$/barrel
100

15

Primary

NPV, $MM

10
5

recovery

Secondary recovery

0
-5 0

10

15

20

-10

30

1PVI/10000 days

-15
-20

25

1PVI/5000 days

Years

Figure 17-Comparative NPV by two different injection rates

35

14
URTeC 1891403
Figure 17 shows the results of the net present value (NPV) calculations for two different injection rates at one pore
volume injection. The insignificant difference of NPV in Figure 17 reflects the project cannot achieve more return
by enduring the injection time for a given injection pore volume. Although it yielded higher oil recovery by using
slower injection rate that extends injection time, the NPV was even lower. Depreciation of cash flow has a negative
influence on return that benefits from diffusion contributed oil recovery. Along with the continuous operating
expenditures including compression cost and gas reinjection cost, it is not a good idea to take advantage of diffusion
increased oil recovery by extending injection time. The NPV calculations aim to provide an insight for designing the
solvent injection rate in shale oil reservoirs and to estimate the projects return.
Conclusions
One striking finding is that the importance of molecular diffusion on shale oil production is more significant than
that on conventional oil reservoirs. Without including the molecular diffusion in absence of convective
displacement, there is no pronounced oil production rate for gas injection in intensely fractured shale oil reservoirs.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The importance of diffusion effect on fractured shale gas reservoirs and shale oil reservoirs is observed. It
is important to notice that the oil recovery by including diffusion effect is much higher than the case
without considering diffusion in shale oil reservoirs. In the cases where the convective flux for a
component is negligible because of low pressure drawdown, diffusion due to compositional differences
between matrix and fracture tends to become the main recovery mechanism.
When CO2 is injected in intensely fractured shale oil reservoirs, CO2 will disperse through the fractures to
the matrix. In the case of fast injection rate and relatively slow injection rate, the diffusion effect on oil
recovery is affected by the injection rate. For the slow injection rate, there is sufficient residence time for
the injected gas to contact with matrix oil which results in higher oil recovery.
The only threat to poor recovery for gas flooding appears to be gas channeling through high permeable
fractures. When there is presence of highly conductive natural fractures, the fluid flows along the natural
fractures, the smallest flow resistance, and breaks through to the producer. The poor flooding performance
occurs when injected gases break-through early and cant contact with matrix oil.
One noticeable finding of gas injection in shale reservoirs is that the interstitial velocity of oil phase in the
shale matrix is considerably lower than that of the conventional reservoirs. In our simulation model, the
Peclet number of oil phase in the shale matrix is essentially less than 0.02. Diffusion is the predominant
recovery mechanism when Peclet number is smaller than 0.02. It confirms the idea that diffusion plays an
important role in recovering oil from nano-scale shale oil reservoirs.
From a reservoir management perspective, relying on diffusion enhanced oil recovery by decreasing
injection rate is not the best way to exploit shale gas resource plays.

Nomenclature
=Binary diffusion coefficient between component i and j in the mixture
k=Permeability
=Relative permeability
=Mass flux
NPe= Peclet Number
Po,Pg = Oil and gas phase pressure
Pcog=Capillary pressure between oil and gas

15
URTeC 1891403
So, Sg, Sw = Saturation of oil, gas and water
=Velocity
Vblock=Volume of the grid-block
=Porosity

=Shape factor, 1/ft2

i =mass transfer of component i caused by both convection and diffusion

, , =Viscosity of oil, gas and water, cp

ij =The mass fraction of component i in phase j divided by the total mass of all components in that same phase
= Molar density

Lx , L y , Lz =Fracture spacing in x, y and z direction

Subscripts
c=components
f=fracture
i=Component index
j=Phase index, o=oil phase, g=gas phase
m=matrix
o=oil, g=gas, w=water
References
Alavian, S.A., Whitson, C.H. 2010. Modeling Miscible CO2 Injection in a Fractured-Chalk Experiment. Paper SPE
135339 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19-22 September, Florence, Italy.
Alavian, S.A. 2011. Modeling Miscible CO2 Injection in Fractured Reservoirs Using Single Matrix Block Systems.
Ph.D dissertation at NTNU.
Allan, A.M., Mavko, G. 2012. The Effect of Adsorption and Diffusion on the Gas Permeability of Kerogen. SEG2012-0076 presented at 2012 SEG Annual Meeting, 4-9 November, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Benitez, J. 2009. Principles and modern applications of mass transfer operations. New Jersy, John Wily & Sons.
CMG Manual. 2011. Coal Matrix-to-Cleat Modelling Parameters. GEM Advanced Compositional and GHG
Reservoir Simulator, Version 2011, Pp. 423-424 .
Coats, K.H. 1989. Implicit Compositional Simulation of Single-Porosity and Dual-Porosity Reservoirs. Paper SPE
18427 presented at the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, 68 February.
Da Silva, F.V. and Belery, P. 1989. Molecular diffusion in naturally fractured reservoirs: a decisive recovery
mechanism. SPE Paper 19672 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 8-11 October,
San Antonio, Texas.

16
URTeC 1891403
Darvish, G.R., Lindeberg, E., Holt, T., Utne, S.A., and Kleppe, J. 2006. Reservoir-Conditions Laboratory
Experiments of CO2 Injection Into Fractured Cores. Paper SPE 99650 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 1215 June.
Ertekin, T., King, G.R., and Schwerer, F.C.1986. Dynamic Gas Slippage: A Unique Dual-Mechanism Approach to
The Flow of Gas in Tight Formations. SPE FE 1 (1):43-52. SPE 12045-PA.
Florence, F. A., J. A. Rushing, K. E. Newsham, and T. A. Blasingame. 2007. Improved permeability prediction
relations for low permeability sands: SPE 107954 presented at Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology
Symposium, 16-18 April, Denver, Colorado.
Ghorayeb, K., Firoozabadi, A. 2000. Numerical Study of Natural Convection and Diffusion in Fractured Porous
Media. SPE J 5 (1): 12-20. SPE-51347-PA.
Hildenbrand, A. A., Ghanizadeh, A., Krooss, B. M. 2011. Transport properties of unconventional gas systems.
Marine Petroleum Geology 31 (1): 9099.
Hoteit, H., Firoozabadi, A. 2009. Numerical Modeling of Diffusion in Fractured Media for Gas-injection andRecycling Schemes. SPE J 14 (2):323-337. SPE-103292-PA.
Hoteit, H. 2011. Proper Modeling of Diffusion in Fractured Reservoirs. Paper SPE 141937 presented at SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 21-23 February, The Woodlands, Texas.
Hoteit, H., & Firoozabadi, A. (2006). Numerical Modeling of Diffusion in Fractured Media for Gas-injection andRecycling Schemes. Paper SPE 103292 presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-27
September, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Jamili, A. 2010. Modeling effects of diffusion and gravity drainage on oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs
under gas injection. Ph.D dissertation at the University of Kansas.
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M. 2007.Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology 46 (10):55-61. Doi: 10.2118/ 10.2118/07-10-06.
Javadpour, F. 2009. Nanopores and Apparent Permeability of Gas Flow in Mudrocks (Shales and Siltstone). JCPT
48 (8): 16-21. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-08-16-DA.
Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.W. 1979. A laboratory Study of Low Permeability Gas Sands. Paper SPE 7551 presented
at the SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, May 20-22, 1979, Denver, Colorado.
Karimaie, H. 2007. Aspects of water and gas injection in fractured reservoirs. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Porterfield, K.L. and Zeman, P.R. 1976. Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE J 16 (6):317-326. SPE-5719-PA.
Krishna, R. and Standart, G. 1979. Mass and energy transfer in multicomponent systems. Chem. Engineering
commu 3 (4-5):201-275.
Kovscek, A.R., Tang, G.Q., Vega, B. 2010. Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from Siliceous Shale by
CO2 Injection. Paper SPE 115679 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, 1922 September.
Lake, L.W.1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Lenormand, R., Le Romancer, J-F. X., Le Gallo, Y., and Bourbiaux, B. 1998. Modeling the diffusion between
matrix and fissure in a fissured reservoir. SPE 49007 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 27-30 September, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Morel, D., D., Bourbiaux, B., Latil, M. and Thiebot, B.1990. Diffusion Effects in Gas-Flooded Light Oil Fractured
Reservoirs. SPE Paper SPE 20516 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sept. 23-26.
Moortgat, J., Firoozabadi, A., Farshi, M. M. 2009. A New Approach to Compositional Modeling of CO2 Injection
in Fractured Media Compared to Experimental Data. Paper SPE 124918 presented at the 2009 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 47 October 2009.
Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R.S., Apaydin, O.G. 2010. Modeling of Fluid Transfer From Shale Matrix to Fracture
Network. Paper 134830 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19-22 September,
Florence, Italy.

17
URTeC 1891403
Perkins,T.K. and Johnston,O.C. 1963. A Review of Diffusion and Dispersion in Porous Media. SPEJ 3 (1):70-84.
SPE-480-PA.
Riazi, M.R. and Whitson, C.H. 1993. Estimating Diffusion Coefficients of Dense Fluids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32
(12): 30813088. Doi:10.1021/ie00024a018.
Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H.F., Cruden, B.A., and Meyyappan, M. 2003. Modeling Gas Flow through
Microchannels and Nanopores. Journal of Applied Physics 93(8): 4870-4879.
Rubin, B. 2010. Accurate Simulation of Non Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fractured Shale Reservoirs. Paper SPE
132093 presented at Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, 27-29 May.
Sakhaee-Pour, A. and Bryant, S. 2012. Gas Permeability of Shale. SPE J 15 (4): 401-409. SPE-146944-PA.
Sampath, K. and Keighin, C.W. 1981. Factors Affecting Gas Slippage in Tight Sandstones. Paper SPE 9872
presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium, May 27-29, Denver, Colorado.
Schettler, PD., Parmely, CR., Lee, WJ. 1989. Gas storage and transport in Devonian shales. SPEFE 4 (3):371376.
SPE-17070-PA.
Shi, J., Zhang, L., Li, Y., Yu, W., He, X., Liu, N., Li, X., Wang, T. 2013. Diffusion and Flow Mechanisms of Shale
Gas through Matrix Pores and Gas Production Forecasting. Paper 167226 presented at SPE Unconventional
Resources Conference Canada, 5-7 November, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sigal, R. F., Qin, B. 2008. Examination of the importance of self diffusion in the transportation of gas in shale gas
reservoirs. Petrophysics 49 (3) :301305.
Sigmund, P.M. 1976. Prediction of Molecular Diffusion At Reservoir Conditions. Part 1- Measurement And
Prediction of Binary Dense Gas Diffusion Coefficients. JCPT 15 (2):48-57.
Thomas, L.K., Dixon, T.N., and Pierson, R.G. 1991. Ekofisk Nitrogen Injection. SPEFE 6 (2):151-160. SPE-19839PA.
Trivedi, J.J., Babadagli, T. 2009. Experimental and numerical modeling of the mass transfer between rock matrix
and fracture. Chemical Engineering Journal 146 (2):194204.
Vega, B., OBrien, W.J., Kovscek, A.R. 2010. Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from Siliceous Shale by
Miscible CO2 Injection. Paper SPE 135627 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September.
Wan, T., Sheng, J.J., Soliman, M.Y. 2013. Evaluate EOR Potential in Fractured Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas
Injection. Paper 168880 presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver,
Colorado, USA, 12-14 August.
Wan, T., Meng, X., Sheng, J., Watson, M. 2014. Compositional Modeling of EOR Process in Stimulated Shale Oil
Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection. Paper SPE 169069 presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
12-16 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Yuan, W., Pan, Z., Li, X., Yang, Y., Zhao, C., Connell, L.D., Li, S., He, J. 2013. Experimental study and modelling
of methane adsorption and diffusion in shale. Fuel 117 (Part A):509-519.
Zick, A.A. 1986. A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases.
Paper 15493 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 October, New Orleans,
Louisiana.