Comparison and Verification of Gas-Bearing Parameter Evaluation Methods for Deep Shale Based on the Pressure Coring Technique

Abstract

Gas-bearing properties, such as gas-in-place (GIP) content and adsorbed gas ratio (AGR), have drawn considerable attention because they are essential for shale gas resource evaluation and sweet spot forecasting. The above-mentioned metrics have been determined using a variety of approaches, but they lack systematic comparison and accuracy verification, particularly for deep shale gas, where conventional methods frequently fall short. A total of 30 shales were taken for the investigation utilizing pressure and conventional coring methods from Wufeng and Longmaxi Formations in the Sichuan Basin, China. For pressure coring samples, we developed the experimental protocols and a GIP content classification scheme that categorizes the GIP content into four categories: lost gas (estimated using the temperature-corrected pressure-holding ratio), extracted gas from depressurization, degassed gas, and residual gas. The four pressure coring samples from well Y206 with measured GIP content range from 2.84 to 5.58 m3/tonne, with an average of 4.72 m3/tonne. In contrast to the calculated GIP content of the pressure coring samples, the validity of the current GIP content evaluation methodologies has been confirmed. The comparison results demonstrate that the GIP content assessed using the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) method is frequently underestimated for samples from conventional coring and notably overstated for samples from pressure coring. The polynomial fitting method dramatically overestimated the GIP content. With its accurate time-dependent boundary conditions and strict theoretical foundation, the simplified carbon isotope fractionation (s-CIF) model exhibits the highest level of accuracy in determining GIP content. Additionally, the s-CIF model can find yet another crucial parameter of AGR. Shale samples from well Y206 had an average AGR of 20.4% but a range from 12.2 to 33.2%. The examination of the influencing factors demonstrates that the lost gas ratio, AGR, and diffusion coefficient are responsible for controlling the calculation error of the USBM method. The lost gas ratio prior to core retrieval increases with decreasing AGR (or increasing diffusion coefficient), which increases the computation error of the USBM method.