SPE 167226

Diffusion and Flow Mechanisms of Shale Gas through Matrix Pores and
Gas Production Forecasting
J untai Shi, SPE, China University of Petroleum at Beijing; Lei Zhang, Research Institute of Yanchang Petroleum
Grouop Co. LTD; Yuansheng Li, China University of Petroleum at Beijing; Wei Yu, The University of Texas at
Austin; Xiangnan He, Ning Liu, Xiangfang Li, China University of Petroleum at Beijing; Tao Wang, Research
Institute of Yanchang Petroleum Grouop Co. LTD
Copyright 2013, Society of PetroleumEngineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference-Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 57 November 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE programcommittee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of PetroleumEngineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract
The transport mechanism of gas moving through matrix pores is the bottleneck of conquering the difficulties in shale gas
development. The matrix pores can be divided into organic and inorganic matrix pores. The transport mechanism of shale gas
in organic and inorganic matrix pores is different. However, the present gas transport model only focused on the gas transport
in organic matrix pores, in addition, the impact of organic and inorganic mass ratio has been largely neglected by shale gas
transport models in the literature, leading to an unclear recognition of shale gas production discipline and large derivation
between prediction results by the present models and actual performance of shale gas wells.
In this paper, both the pore size distribution and water distribution in shale matrix pores are investigated. Furthermore, a new
diffusion-slippage-flow model in combination with the gas transport mechanism is proposed. Also, the organic content effect
is considered and the range of Knudsen number is quantified. Finally, a gas production model based on this gas transport
mechanism is derived and employed to reveal the discipline of shale gas production.
The preliminary results illustrate that Knudsen diffusion is not suitable for shale gas reservoirs. This is because Knudsen
number is generally less than 10, especially for such shale gas reservoirs with higher initial reservoir pressure. Gas moving
through shale matrix pores to fractures is mainly divided into two forms: in organic matrix pores, both slip effect and
transition diffusion mechanism are dominant; in inorganic matrix pores, the gas-water two-phase flow controls the gas
transport mechanism because of the presence of water in these pores.
The efforts of this work will provide a more accurate technique for forecasting shale gas production, and also give some
insights into scientific evidence to the rational development of shale gas reservoirs.

Keywords: Shale gas, matrix pores, diffusion, slippage, gas production discipline.
Introduction and Background
Transport of gas in shale gas reservoirs is a complex multi-scale transport process, which is from macro scale to the
molecular scale (J avadpour 2007). So far, lots of researches on transport mechanisms of shale gas in shale matrix pores and
fractures have been done. For the transport of gas in fractures, nearly all researchers considered there is no doubt in migration
mechanism of fractures, generally believing that gas migration in the fracture system obeys Darcy flow, but the migration
mechanism of gas in matrix system is in the controversial. Zuber et al. (2002), Schepers et al. (2009),Wang and Reed (2009),
Song and Ehlig-Economides (2011) and Song (2013) successively proposed that gas migration from matrix system to the
fracture system in shale gas reservoirs obeys Darcy flow; Rushing et al (1989; 2007), Dahaghi (2010) and Dahaghi and
Mohaghegh (2011) successively proposed gas migration diffuses from matrix system to the fracture system in shale gas
reservoirs; J avadpour (2009) and Ozkan et al. (2009) proposed that flow and diffusion exist at the same time for gas
migration from matrix system to fracture system.
2 SPE 167226
Recently investigations on apparent gas permeability focused on flow mechanisms of gas in Nano-pores in shale gas
(Clarkson et al. 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Michel et al. 2011; Civan et al. 2011; Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant 2012; J avadpour et al.
2007; J avadpour 2009; Swami and Settari 2012; Swami et al. 2012; Fathi et al. 2012). Ertekin et al. (1986) introduced a
dynamic slippage factor into apparent gas permeability model by using Knudsen diffusion coefficient. Clarkson et al. (2011,
2012a) extended the dynamic-slippage concept to shale gas reservoirs in order to analyze production characteristics of tight-
gas and shale-gas reservoirs. Numerical simulation demonstrated that dynamic-slippage concept should be incorporated to
accurately forecast the production characteristics of reservoirs with multi-mechanism flow such as shale gas reservoirs.
Michel et al. (2011) also incorporated Knudsen diffusion into the gas slippage factor to develop their own dynamic gas
slippage factor. Civan et al. (2011) and Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) considered Knudsen diffusion into the slippage
factor and developed an apparent gas permeability model. J avadpour et al. (2007, 2009) considered both Knudsen diffusion
and slippage effect and derived an apparent gas permeability model. Swami and Settari (2012) performed pore scale gas
model for shale gas reservoirs and thought that Knudsen diffusion and slippage should be included in the shale gas
production modeling. Swami et al. (2012) compared various apparent gas permeability models and quantitatively modeled
gas production in shale gas reservoirs by incorporating these models in a numerical simulator. They noted that models
proposed by Civan et al. (2011) and Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) were a reasonable approach, and the model proposed
by J avadpour et al. (2007, 2009), in which the Knudsen diffusion and slippage effect were both considered, was also
reasonable on a theoretical basis but needed validation against field data.
In this work, first by presenting the pore scale in shale matrix and the pressure characteristics of shale gas reservoirs,
according to Knudsen number, the flow regime in shale gas reservoirs is determined systematically. An apparent gas
permeability model for organic matter in shale matrix is proposed for all flow regimes. Furthermore, an apparent gas
permeability model for inorganic matter in shale matrix considering water effect in inorganic matrix pores is also developed.
Through considering the organic content in shale matrix, the apparent gas permeability model for shale matrix is generated
by combining apparent gas permeability models for organic matter and inorganic matter in shale matrix. Finally, gas
production model of shale gas wells is established and calculated, and gas production decline curve is also obtained. From the
gas production decline curve, it can be clearly seen that gas transport in shale matrix pores significantly affect the gas
production performance.

Transport type of shal e gas in matrix pores

Matrix pore distribution of shale gas
At present, a lot of researches have been done for pore scale distribution characteristics of shale matrix. Howard (1991)
proposed that matrix pore diameter of Frio shale is between 5nm and 15nm; Katsub (1992) proposed that the matrix pore
diameter of the shale buried 4400 and 5600m underground is between 2.7nm to 11.5nm; Reed (2007) and Wang et al. (2009)
pointed out that the pore diameter of shale organic matter ranged from 5nm to 1000nm; Nelson (2009) proposed that the
minimum diameter of shale matrix pore throats was detected to be about the size of asphaltene molecular by experiments,
about 10 times of water molecule and methane molecule, about 5nm. And the maximum diameter of shale matrix pores is
about 100nm. J avadpour (2009) revealed that nanometer pores existed in shale matrix by high-pressure mercury injection
experiment and backscatter scanning electron microscopy, and detected Nano-pores and Nano-grooves in shale matrix by
using atomic force microscopy (AFM) at the first time.
According to these researches on the pore scale of shale matrix, it can be concluded that the diameter of shale matrix pores is
mainly distributed in the nanometer level.
Reservoir pressure and temperature of shale gas reservoir
Material for 5 shale gas basins in North America shows that the initial reservoir pressure of shale gas reservoirs is
between 2.76 and 68.95MPa, as shown in Figure 1.
SPE 167226 3

Figure 1 The initial formation pressure of 5 shale gas reservoirs in North America

The mean free path of gas molecules in shale gas reservoir
The mean free path of gas molecules is defined as,
2
m
2

=
B
T
p
(1)
where, is the mean free path of gas molecules, m;
B
is Boltzmann constant, which is equal to 1.3805 10
-23
J /K; T is the
temperature, K; p is the pressure, Pa;
m
is the molecular collision diameter (effective diameter) of the gas molecules, m.
The mole percentage of gas components for a kind of shale gas is shown in the Table 1, it can be seen that the collision
diameter of each component is different, the mean molecular collision diameter of shale gas weighted according to the mole
fraction is 0.41 nm, and the molar mass is 19.5 kg/kmol.

Table 1 Molecular collision diameter of shale gas
Gas Mole fraction Collision diameter Molar mass
component (%) (
m
, m) (kg/kmol)
CH
4
87.4 4.010
-10
16
C
2
H
6
0.12 5.210
-10
30
CO
2
12.48 4.510
-10
44
Average 4.110
-10
19.5

According to the equation of the mean free path of gas molecules, we can see that is directly proportional to T, but inversely
proportional to p. The mean free path of shale gas molecules under different temperature and pressure are calculated, which
are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2.

Table 2 The mean free path of shale gas molecules under different temperature and pressure
p
Pa
at T=273K
nm
at T=300K
nm
at T=350K
nm
at T=400K
nm
1.00E+05 50.46223 55.45301 64.69517 80.03717
1.00E+06 5.046223 5.545301 6.469517 8.003717
1.00E+07 0.504622 0.55453 0.646952 0.800372
1.00E+08 0.050462 0.055453 0.064695 0.080037
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Barnett Ohio Antrim New Albany Lewis
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

M
P
a

The Minimum
The Maximum
4 SPE 167226

Figure 2 the mean free path of shale gas molecules under different temperature and pressure

From Table 3 and Figure 2, it can be seen that: (1) temperature has little impact on the mean free path of shale gas
molecules; (2) pressure has great influence on the mean free path of shale gas molecules; (3) when the pressure is less than
10MPa, increases sharply as pressure decreases; (4) when the pressure is greater than 10MPa, is less than 1, and decreases
slightly with the increase of pressure.

Determination of transport mechanism of shale gas in matrix pores
The range of Kn in shale gas matrix pores
Knudsen (1934) defines Knudsen number to describe different gas transport pattern in porous media. The expression of
Knudsen number is,
n

= K
D
(2)
where D is the mean diameter of the pore, m; is the mean free path of gas molecules, m.
Roy et al. (2003) put forward that gas transport can be divided into different flow patterns by Knudsen number, for
each flow regime, gas transport followed different control equations, as shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3 Gas flow regimes divided by Kn

When K
n
<10
-3
, the gas transport in pores is continuous flow without slippage effect. In this flow regime, gas can be
considered as a continuous medium, gas flow conforms to Darcy or non-Darcy equation.
When 10
-3
<Kn<10
-1
, the gas transport in pores is continuous flow with slippage effect. In this flow regime, on the one
hand, gas still can be considered as a continuous medium, gas flow meets Darcy and non-Darcys law; on the other hand, gas
flow along the pore wall is not zero, so slippage effect exits, gas flow meets the Klinkenbergs equation. Therefore, gas
flow in the regime is influenced by both Darcy (non-Darcy) and slippage effect.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

,

n
m

p, MPa
273K
300K
350K
400K
SPE 167226 5
When 10
-1
<Kn<10, the gas transport in pores is transitional flow. In this regime, and D are in the same order of
magnitude, the influence of collisions between gas molecules on gas flow is as important as collisions between gas
molecules and pore wall, the assumption of the continuum flow is no longer valid, gas transport in this regime is the
combination of the Knudsen diffusion and slip flow.
When K
n
>10, the gas transport in pores is free-molecule flow. In this flow regime, collisions between gas molecules are
no longer important, collisions between gas molecules and the pore wall becomes the main affecting factor, gas transport in
this regime only meets the Knudsen diffusion.

Gas flow regime in shale gas matrix pores
Assuming temperature in shale gas reservoirs is ranging from 273 K to 433 K, the diameter of shale matrix pores ranges
from 1 nm to 1000 nm, and the pressure is in the range of 1 MPa ~100 MPa. The mean free path of shale gas molecules is
calculated to be in range of 0.050462 nm ~8.003717 nm, and the Knudsen number ranges from 5.0462 10
-5
to 8.003717.
According to Figure 3, it can be concluded that gas transport in shale matrix pores is Darcy flow (non-Darcy flow), slip flow
or transition flow. Only Knudsen diffusion doesnt exist in shale gas reservoirs.
For an actual shale gas reservoir, after getting the reservoir pressure, temperature, and the pore diameter distribution of
matrix pores, so Figure 4 can be used to determine the gas transport pattern. In Figure 4, three lines (line with Kn=0.001,
Kn=0.1, and Kn=10, respectively) separate the whole coordinate into four part: continuum flow, slip flow, transition flow,
and free-molecule flow. The minimum p/T is equal to the ratio of the minimum p versus the maximum T, and the maximum
p/T is equal to the ratio of the maximum p versus the minimum T. so the gas transport lies within the surface surrounded by
the dotted rectangle.

Figure 4 The decision chart of gas transport pattern in shale matrix pores

Transport model of shal e gas in matrix pores

Transport model of shale gas in organic matrix pores
Darcy flow model
When K
n
<10
-3
, the gas transport in shale matrix pores can be described by Darcy equation, which is expressed as,
m
m
g
,

k p
v
r
(3)
where v
m
is the gas velocity in shale matrix pores, m/s; k is the permeability of the shale matrix, m
2
; p
m
is the pressure in
shale matrix pores, Pa;
g
is gas viscosity, Pas.

Slip flow model
When Kn is in the range of 0.001 and 0.1, the collision between gas molecule and the internal surface wall cannot be
ignored, the slippage effect is not negligible, so apparent gas permeability is higher than that measured by liquid, The
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
p
/
T
,

M
P
a
/
K

d, nm
Kn=0.001
Kn=0.1
Kn=10
Min d
Max d
Min p/T
Max p/T
Darcy flow regime
Slip flow regime
Transition flow regime
Knudsen
diffusion
regime
6 SPE 167226
apparent gas permeability equation in the slip flow range can be expressed by Klinkenberg Equation (Klinkenberg 1941),
( )
g
g
Slip
= 1 8 ,

| |
+
|
\ .
k k c
D
(4)
where (k
g
)
Slip
is apparent gas permeability in slip flow regime, m
2
; k

is the absolute permeability of rock, usually is

approximated by apparent liquid permeability , m
2
;
g
is mean free path of gas molecules, m; D is the pore diameter, m; c is
the proportionality factor, dimensionless.
A similar equation for slip flow was derived by (Roy et al., 2003; Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant, 2012),
( )
g
Slip g
l
2
=1 4 ,

| |
+
|
\ .
v
v
k
k D
(5)
where
v
is the tangential momentum-accommodation coefficient, which is close to 0.9 (Roy et al., 2003), so the slip flow
model will be,
( ) ( )
g
Slip
= 1 5 n .

+ k k K (6)
From this equation, we can see that c in Equation 1 is approximately equal to 0.625.
Actually Equation 6 can also be used to calculate the absolute permeability in continuum flow regime, because in
continuum flow regime, Kn<0.001, the relative error 5Kn is lower than 0.005.

Transition flow model
Transition flow is a complex flow type combining effects of slip flow and Knudsen diffusion, which is the most
complicated regime in all flow regimes. Few studies have been done for this regime. Typical works on the flow model in
transition flow regime have been investigated by J avadpour (2009), and Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012).
(1) Equation proposed by J avadpour
J avadpour (2009) proposed that in transition flow regime, the slip flow and Knudsen diffusion should be considered in the
same time, so the mass flow rate of gas for transition flow regime is the summation of slip mass flow rate of gas and Knudsen
diffusion mass rate of gas, which is expressed as,
a D
, = + J J J (7)
where J
a
is slip mass flow rate of gas, kg/s/m
2
; J
D
Knudsen diffusion mass rate of gas, kg/s/m
2
.
(2) Equation proposed by Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant
Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant(2012) investigated the flow mechanism in transition flow, they proposed that equation with
one-order of Kn is not enough to describe the flow mechanism of gas in transition flow regime, so through matching with lab
data, they proposed that the ratio of apparent gas permeability versus liquid permeability is equal to a correlation with
second-order polynomial form of Kn, which is applicable in the range of 0.1 and 0.8 in Kn.
( ) ( )
2
g
Transition
0.8453 5.4576 n 0.1633 n = + + k k K K (8)
where (k
g
)
Transition
is apparent gas permeability in transition flow regime, m
2
; k
l
is the liquid permeability, which is
approximately equal to absolute permeability of rock k

, m
2
; Kn is Knudsen number.

Knudsen flow model
When Kn>10, gas transport is in free-molecule flow regime. As mentioned above, gas transport in shale matrix pores
may be in the continuum flow regime, slip flow regime, or transition flow regime. Only Knudsen flow cannot be happen in
shale matrix. However, in order to get the gas transport model for the whole transition flow regime and the gas transport
model for all flow regimes (including continuum flow regime, slip flow regime, transition flow regime and Knudsen flow
regime), Knudsen flow model is also presented here.
Ziarani and Aguilera (2012) conducted some experiments to investigate gas flow mechanism in this regime. Sakhaee-
Pour and Bryant (2012), Ziarani and Aguilera applied Knudsen diffusion to describe the gas flow characteristics in this
regime. Agarwal et al. (2001) proposed that gas transport mechanism can be investigated by DSMC method and grid
Boltzmann method.
Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) proposed a flow equation to represent the free-molecule flow,
n n
, =
K K i
J D n (9)
where J
Kn
is mass flux of gas component i, kg/s/m
2
; D
Kn
is Knudsen diffusivity coefficient, m
2
/s;
i
n is the density gradient
of gas component i, kg/m
4
.
Transmitting equation of the mass flow rate with gas density gradient to that with gas pressre gradient yields,
D Kn m
, =
M
J D P
RT
(10)
SPE 167226 7
where M is the molar mass of gas, kg/kmol; R is universal gas constant, which is equal to 8314 Pa.m
3
/(kmol.K); T is the
temperature, K; D is the diameter of pores. D
Kn
is expressed by
organic
Kn
8
3
=
D
RT
D
M
(11)
Submitting Equation 11 into Equation 9 gives,
organic
D m
8
3
=
D
M RT
J P
RT M
(12)
Actually, J
D
can be expressed by,
D
, = J v (12)
where v is the gas flow velocity, m/s. Equation 12 can also be expressed as,
g organic
m
g g
8 1
3

=
M D
RT
v P
RT M
(13)
Comparing the form of Darcy flow equation, we can see that in Knudsen diffusion regime the apparent gas permeability
is,
( )
g organic
g
Knudsen
g
8
,
3

=
M D
RT
k
RT M
(14)
where (k
g
)
Knudsen
is apparent gas permeability in free-molecule flow regime, m
2
; is gas viscosity, Pa.s;
avg
is average gas
density, kg/m
3
, which expression is,
m
g
=
Mp
RT
(15)
So Equation 14 will be changed to be
( )
g organic
g
Knudsen
m
8
3

=
D
RT
k
p M
(16)
Applying Poiseuilles Equation for the capillary tube model and the expression of the average free path of gas molecule
(see Equation 1), Equation 16 can further reorganized as follows,

( )
( )
2 2 2
organic organic g g
g 2
Knudsen
organic organic
2 2
g
organic
organic
128
32 3
128
= n
3

| || | | |
=
| | |
| | |
\ .\ .\ .
| |
|
|
\ .
D
R
k
MT D
R
k K
MT
(17)

The flow-slip-diffusion model of gas in all flow regimes
In order to get the transport model in all flow regimes, we need investigate the transport mechanism in transition flow
regime and get the flow model for this regime first. The flow model in transition flow regime proposed by Sakhaee-Pour and
Bryant (2012) is suitable for 0.1 <Kn <0.8, but few flow model in transition flow regime is available for 0.8 <Kn <10. In the
following part, we investigate the transport model in the whole range of transition regime.
As mentioned above, Gas transport in transition flow regime is between the slip flow regime and the free-molecule flow
regime, in this range, slip flow and Knudsen diffusion coexists, the effect of the slip flow decreases with Kn increasing, while
the effect of Knudsen diffusion increases with Kn increasing. So the gas transport model in this regime is the weighted
average of slip flow model and Knudsen diffusion model, as shown in Equation 18.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
g g g
Transition Slip Knudsen
= 1 , + k k f k f (18)
where (k
g
)
Slip
and (k
g
)
Knudsen
is shown in Equation 6 and 17, f is the weight coefficient, dimensionless, which can be expressed
by,
1
0.5
1
= .
n
1+
n

| |
|
\ .
n
f
K
K
(19)
The weight coefficient f is in the range of 0 and 1, when Kn is lower than 0.1, it will gradually approach to 1, when Kn is
8 SPE 167226
higher than 10, it will gradually approach to 0. It will decrease from 1 to 0 with Kn increasing from 0.1 to 10. The larger f is,
the more slip flow effect is, on the contrary, the lower f is, the more Knudsen diffusion effect is.
In order to get the coefficient Kn
0.5
and n in Equation 19, Equation proposed by Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) was
used to generate the fitting data, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 the apparent gas permeability versus Kn from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012)
Kn
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(k
g
)
Transiton
/ k
1.392693 1.943352 2.497277 3.054468 3.614925 4.178648 4.745637 5.315892

By matching data in Table 3 with the proposed model (Equation 18 and 19), Kn
0.5
and n can be obtained. Figure 5 and 6
are the comparison between (k
g
)
Transiton
/ k

/Kn from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) and those estimated by the proposed
model in this work. Figure 7 is the comparison between (k
g
)
Transiton
/ k

from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) and those

estimated by the proposed model in this work. From Figure 5, 6 and 7, it can be seen that a good agreement is obtained.
Finally Kn
0.5
is determined to be 4.5, and n is equal to 5.


Figure 5 Comparison between (kg)Transiton/ k/Kn from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) and those estimated by the proposed model in
this work


Figure 6 Comparison between (kg)Transiton/ k/Kn from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) and those estimated by the proposed model in
this work

0
4
8
12
16
20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
k
g
/
k

/
K
n
,

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

Kn, dimensionless
The proposed medel
Equation by Sakhaee-pour and Bryant, 2012
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10
k
g
/
k

/
K
n
,

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

Kn, dimensionless
The proposed model
Equation by Sakhaee-pour and Bryant, 2012
SPE 167226 9

Figure 7 Comparison between (kg)Transiton/ k from Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (2012) and those estimated by the proposed model in
this work

Figure 8 is the plot of f versus Kn. As shown in this figure, when Kn is lower than 0.1, f is almost equal to 1, so in this
case it can be considered that there is no Knudsen diffusion effect in gas flow process, which manifests that the proposed
model can be extend to slip flow regime and continuum flow regime. When Kn is larger than 15, f is almost equal to 0, so in
this case it can be considered that there is no slippage effect in gas flow process, which indicates that the proposed model can
also be extend to free-molecule flow regime.

Figure 8 Plot of f versus Kn.

Figure 9 is the comparison between k
g
/k

for slip flow regime, transition flow regime, and Knudsen diffusion regime and
those estimated by the proposed model. From this figure, it can be clearly seen that the proposed model can accurately match
data in all flow regimes, which validates the effectiveness of the proposed model for all flow regimes. From this figure, we
can see that k
g
/k

rockets for 1<Kn<10. When Kn>10, k

g
/k

increases linearly with increasing Kn.

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.1 1 10
k
g
/
k

Kn
The proposed model
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
f
,

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

Kn, dimensionless
10 SPE 167226

Figure 9 Comparison between kg/k for slip flow regime, transition flow regime, and Knudsen diffusion regime and those estimated
by the proposed model

Finally, the apparent gas permeability model for all flow regimes proposed in this work will be,
( )
2 2 4
5
g
g,organic 4 4 4 4
128 4.5 1 5 n
n
= .
4.5 + n 3 4.5 + n

( | |
+ | |
+ ( |
|
|
( \ .
\ .
K
R K
k k
K MT K
(20)
For shale gas reservoirs with parameters in Table 4, when the pressure is from 1MPa to 70MPa, the apparent gas
permeabilities for these three pressures are shown in Figure 10. The corresponding Darcy flow models are introduced to
compare the difference between apparent gas permeability for all flow regimes and the absolute permeability.


Figure 10 Plots of kg versus Kn when T=360K, =0.06, and p = 1MPa, 10 MPa, and 70MPa respectivel y

From Figure 10, we can see that the apparent gas permeability for Kn close to 1 is lower than that for Kn close to 5,
although the diameter of matrix pores for lower Kn is larger than that for higher Kn at the same average free path of gas
molecules. When the pressure is from 1 MPa to 70 MPa for shale gas reservoirs, the lowest apparent gas permeability appears
in the range of Kn from 1.2 to 0.8. This concludes that when Kn is in the range of 0.8-1.2, the apparent gas permeability is
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
k
g
/
k

Kn
The proposed model
Equation by Sakhaee-pour and Bryant,
2012
Knudsen Diffusion Equation
Slip flow model
1.0E-10
1.0E-08
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
1.0E-02
1.0E+00
1.0E+02
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
K
g
,

m
D

Kn
p=1MPa,the proposed model
p=1MPa,Darcy equation
p=10MPa,the proposed model
p=10MPa,Darcy equation
p=70MPa,the proposed model
p=70MPa,Darcy equation
SPE 167226 11
lowest and the development effect is the worst.
So for shale gas reservoir, we can also see that the apparent gas permeability of shale matrix doesnt always decreases
with decreasing the matrix pore size.

Table 4 Parameters of shale gas reservoirs
,
Pa.s
,
dimensionless
,
m
,
fraction
,
J /K
R,
Pa.m3/Kmol/K
M,
kg/kmol
T,
K
0.000023 1 4.110
-10
0.06 1.3810
23
8314 19.5 360


Transport model of shale gas in inorganic matrix pores
Water distribution in matrix pores (inorganic matrix pores)
The inorganic shale matrix pores distributes in the void of fine sands and clays, as shown in Figure 11. Because the
surface of fine sands and clays is hydrophilic, water adheres to the internal surface of the inorganic shale matrix pores, while
the organic matrix pores is hydrophobic, so water in the matrix pores mainly distributes in the inorganic matrix pores,
generally appears in the inner surface of large inorganic matrix pores, and even occupies the whole small inorganic pores.
Due to the existence of water in the inorganic matrix pores, the effective diameter of inorganic matrix pores will be reduced
or plugged.


Figure 11 Inorganic matrix pores of SEM of Barnett (Ambrose et al. 2010; Wang and Reed 2009)

Gas flow model in inorganic matrix pores
From Figure 11, we can see that the matrix pores in shale gas can be represented by capillary tubes or plates. If the matrix
pores are represented by capillary tubes with same diameters, the liquid water adsorbing at the internal surface of capillary
tubes will reduce the diameter of matrix pores. On the one hand, the apparent gas permeability of the inorganic porous media
decreases with water saturation because of decrease in the pore throat for gas filtration, on the other hand, it will increase
because of the increase of the slippage effect.
Gas transport mechanism in inorganic matrix pores is in the Darcy flow regime or the slip flow regime, so the apparent
gas permeability model in inorganic matrix matter can be expressed by
( )
g
inorganic
inorganic
inorganic
= 1 8 ,

| |
+
|
|
\ .
k k c
D
(21)
where k
inorganic
is apparent gas permeability in inorganic matrix matter, m
2
;
g
is mean free path of gas molecules, m; D
inorganic

is the pore diameter of inorganic matrix pores, m.
For the shale matrix block with A
t
as the cross sectional area,
t
as the content of organic matter in shale matrix, L
t
as the
length,
t
as the porosity of matrix,
oganic
as the porosity of organic matter, and D
inorganic,0
as the initial diameter of inorganic
matrix pores, so the relationship between the initial porosity of the inorganic matter and the initial diameter of inorganic
matrix pores can be represented by

( ) ( )
2 2
inorganic 0 t inorganic 0
inorganic 0
t t t

= .
4 1 4 1

=
D L D
A L A
(22)
The initial permeability of the inorganic matter is,
Inorganic matrix pores
12 SPE 167226
( )
2
inorganic 0 inorganic 0
2 inorganic,0
.
32

=
D
k

(23)
Because of the existence of water in inorganic matrix pores, the diameter of inorganic matrix pores becomes D
inorganic
, so
the relationship between D
inorganic
and water saturation in the inorganic matter S
w,inorganic
can be described as,

( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
inorganic,0 inorganic t inorganic,0 inorganic
w,inorganic 2 2
inorganic,0 t inorganic,0

= .

=
D D L D D
S
D L D
(24)
Equation 24 can also be transformed as,

( )
2 2
inorganic w,inorganic inorganic,0
=1 . D S D (25)
The porosity of inorganic matter with water saturation of S
w,inorganic
will become

( ) ( )
2 2
inorganic inorganic
inorganic
t t

= .
4 1 4 1

=
D L D
A L A
(26)
Dividing Equation 26 by Equation 22 and arranging it gives,

2
inorganic
inorganic inorganic 0 2
inorganic 0
.

=
D
D
(27)
Substituting Equation 25 into Equation 27 yields,

( )
inorganic w,inorganic inorganic 0
1 .

= S (28)
So the gas permeability of inorganic matter will become,
( )
2
inorganic inorganic
2 inorganic
.
32

=
D
k (29)
Substituting Equation 25 and 28 into Equation 29 gives,
( )
( )
2
2
w,inorganic inorganic,0 inorganic,0
2 inorganic
1
.
32

=
S D
k (30)
Dividing Equation 30 by Equation 23 and arranging it gives,

( ) ( )
2
w,inorganic ,inorganic,0
inorganic
1 .

= k S k (31)
Substituting Equation 25 and 31 into Equation 21 gives,

( ) ( ) ( )
2 1.5
g
inorganic w,inorganic w,inorganic
inorganic 0
inorganic 0
= 1 8 1

(
+
(
(

k k S c S
D
(32)
Assume the water saturation of the matrix block is S
w
. As mentioned above, water only appears in inorganic matrix pores,
so water saturation in the inorganic matter will be
w
w,inorganic
= .
1
S
S (33)
Substituting Equation 33 into Equation 32 gives,

( )
2 1.5
w w
inorganic
inorganic 0
= 1 8 1 n
1 1

(
| | | |
+
(
| |

\ . \ .
(

S S
k k c K (34)
The coupling transport model of shale gas in organic and inorganic matrix pores
Because the organic matrix pores and Inorganic matrix pores in the parallel in the direction, so the apparent gas permeability
in shale matrix block with organic materials and inorganic materials is the cross surface weighted average apparent gas
permeability in organic matrix pores and gas permeability in inorganic matrix pores. Assume that is the organic matter
content in shale matrix, the total apparent gas permeability model will be the summation of the apparent gas permeability of
organic material and that of inorganic material, which is written as,
SPE 167226 13
( )
( )
( ) ( )
2 2 4
5
g
gT 4 4 4 4 organic
organic
2 1.5
w w
inorganic,0
128 4.5 1 5 n
n
=
4.5 + n 3 4.5 + n
+ 1 5 1 n 1 ,
1 1

( | |
+ | |
+ ( |
|
|
( \ .
\ .
(
| | | |
+
(
| |

\ . \ .
(

K
R K
k k
K MT K
S S
k K
(35)
where (k

)
organic
and (k

)
inorganic,0
can be expressed as Equation 20 and Equation 34 for capillary models, respectively. The
initial porosity of inorganic matter
inorganic,0
can be calculated by,
( )
0 organic
inorganic 0
= ,
1

(36)
So the total apparent gas permeability model will changed to be,
( )
( )
2 2 2 4
5
organic organic g
gT 2 4 4 4 4
organic
2 2 1.5
0 organic inorganic,0
w w
2
128 4.5 1 5 n
n
=
32 4.5 + n 3 4.5 + n
+ 1 5 1 n ,
32 1 1

( | |
+ | |
+ ( |
|
|
( \ .
\ .
(
| | | |
+
(
| |

\ . \ .
(

D K
R K
k
K MT K
D
S S
K
(37)
Where k
gT
is the total apparent gas permeability, m
2
; is the organic matter content in shale matrix, fraction;
0
is the initial
porosity of the whole shale matrix block, fraction;
organic
is the porosity of organic matter, fraction;
inorganic
is the porosity of
inorganic matter, fraction;
inorganic,0
is the initial porosity of inorganic matter, fraction; D
organic
is the diameter of organic
matter pores, m; D
inorganic,0
is the initial diameter of inorganic matter pores, m; S
w
is the water saturation in the whole shale
matrix block, fraction; is the tortuosity of the shale matrix, dimensionless.

Gas production model of shale gas wells

Model assumption
Shale gas reservoir is dual porosity reservoirs. In order to investigate the production characteristic of shale gas wells and the
effect of gas transport in matrix pores on the production. Here, flat model is applied to simplify the dual porosity reservoir
(Bello, 2009), the simplified dual porosity model is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Simplified dual porosity model for shale gas reservoirs

The following assumptions are given below for the flat model of shale gas horizontal well with multi-stage fractures,
(1) The formation of shale gas reservoir is horizontal and with the same thickness, in which the gas flow is isothermal
process; (2) Horizontal well with multi-stage fractures is located in the center of reservoir, and no fluid flows at ends of the
horizontal well; (3) Only gas is produced from the well; (4) The effect of gas desorption in matrix pores is considered; (5)
Effects of wellbore storage and skin factor are not considered in the model; (6) Matrix block is in the flat form, with L in the
14 SPE 167226
characteristic length of matrix block; (7) Matrix piece centerline (dotted line) is the Y axis direction, horizontal well is the X
axis direction; (8) The direction of gas flow in matrix is in the X direction, and the direction of gas flow in fractures is in the
Y direction.
Combining with the characteristics of linear flow in shale gas reservoirs, the flat model contains four directions for flowing:
(1) The linear flow from matrix to fracture, parallel to the X direction; (2) The linear flow from fracture to the horizontal
wellbore, parallel to the Y direction.

Model establishment
Continuity equation for matrix
The continuity equation in shale matrix is expressed in terms of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time,
( )
2
g tm m
m i m
2
am a
,


=

C
x k t
(38)
where t
a
is the pseudo-time, dimensionless;
m
is the pseudo-pressure in matrix pores, Pa/s; C
tm
is the total compressibility in
matrix, Pa
-1
; C
f
is the compressibility of matrix system, Pa
-1
; C
g
is compressibility of gas, Pa
-1
; C
d
is the desorption
compressibility of gas, Pa
-1
.The expressions of t
a
,
m
, C
tm
, and C
d
are expressed as follows,
( )
t
i
a
0
t
( ) ( )
t C
t dt
p C p

(39)
( )
i
m m
2
p
p
p
p dp
z

= =

(40)
tm g f d
C C C C = + + (41)
( )
2
sc L L
d
m sc sc L
p ZV p
C
Z T p p p
=
+
(42)
Continuity equation for fracture
The continuity equation in fracture is expressed in terms of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time,
( )
2
g tf f
am f m i f
2
/2 f f a
1
,
/ 2


=
| |
=
|

\ .
x L
C
k
x L k x k t
(43)
where
f
is the pseudo-pressure in fractures, Pa/s; C
tf
is the total compressibility in fractures, Pa
-1
; C
r
is the compressibility of
fracture system, Pa
-1
; The expressions of
f
and C
tf
are expressed as follows,
( )
t
i
a
0
t
( ) ( )
t C
t dt
p C p

(44)
( )
i
f f
2

= =

p
p
p
p dp
z
(45)
tf r g
C C C = + (46)
The initial condition and boundary conditions
(1) The initial condition and boundary conditions for matrix system
Initial condition:
m
=0 when t=0;

Outer boundary condition:

m
/ x =0 when x=0;
Inner boundary condition:
m
=
f

when x=L/2
(2) The initial condition and boundary conditions for fracture system
Initial condition:
f
=0 when t=0;

Outer boundary condition:

f
/ y =0 when y=y
f
;
Inner boundary condition:
( )
f f f f
cw f
2
k p k p
q A x h
y y

= =


when y=0.
SPE 167226 15
Model dimensionless
Dimensionless variable is defined as in Table 5.
Table 5 Definition of dimensionless variabl e
Variable Equation Variable Equation
Dimensionless pseudo-
pressure
f cw i
D 3
( )
1291 10
k A
qT

=
.

Dimensionless pseudo-
time ( ) ( )
f a
Da
gi ti ti cw
m f
k t
t
c c A
=
( +


Dimensionless
production
f cw i wf
3
D
( )
1
1291 10
k A
q qT

=
.
Storability
| |
f tif
m tim f tif
c
c c

=
+

Transmissivity ratio
am
cw 2
f
1
12
k
A
L k
=
Dimensionless size of
gas reservoir
f
Df
cw
y
y
A
=
Dimensionless length -
X direction
D
/ 2
x
x
L
=
Dimensionless length -
Y direction
D
cw
y
y
A
=

Through submitting dimensionless variables in Table 5 to Equation 39 and 43, the dimensionless continuity equations for
matrix and fractures can be obtained.

Dimensionless continuity equation for matrix
The dimensionless continuity equation for matrix is,
( )
2
Dm Dm
2
D Da
3
1
x t

=

(47)
Initial condition:
Dm
=0 when t
Da
=0;

Outer boundary condition:

Dm
/ x
D
=0 when x
D
=0;
Inner boundary condition:
Dm
=
Df

when x
D
=1.
Dimensionless continuity equation for fracture
The dimensionless continuity equation for fracture is,
D
2
Df Dm Df
2 2
D D Da
1
3
x
y x t

=
| |
=
|

\ .
(48)
Initial condition:
Df
=0 when t
Da
=0;

Outer boundary condition:

Df
/ x
D
=0 when y
D
=y
Df
;
Inner boundary condition:
D
Df
D
0
2
y
y

=
| |
=
|

\ .

when y
D
=0.
Model calculation
Introduce Laplace transformation method, t in real space is transformed to s in Laplace space by the following equation,
0
( ) ,

st
s e dt (49)
wheres is variable in Laplace space.
Through Laplace transformation, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure at the bottom hole of shale gas horizontal well with
multi-stage fractures produced at the constant gas production is derived,
( )
( )
( )
Df
Df
2
Dwf
2
2 1
1
sf s y
sf s y
e
s sf s
e

+
==

(50)
The relationship between production and pressure in Laplace space is as follows (Van Everdingen and Hurst, 1949; Bello,
2009)
16 SPE 167226
Dwf D 2
1
q
s
= (51)
So the dimensionless gas production of shale gas horizontal well with multi-stage fractures produced at the constant bottom
hole flowing pressure is,
( )
( )
( )
Df
Df
2
D
2
1
2
1
sf s y
sf s y
sf s
e
q
s
e

=
+
(52)
Gas production decline curve
Gas production decline curves can be divided into four stages, including fracture linear flow stage, bilinear flow stage, matrix
linear flow stage, and outer boundary controlling stage. Figure ? is the gas production decline curves with fixed storability
and Dimensionless size of gas reservoir y
Df
but different transmissivity ratio . As shown the curve with =0.001 in
Figure ?, three vertical dotted lines divides the horizontal axis into four sections. From the left side to the right side, the first
section is the fracture linear flow stage with -1/2 in slope of the curve. The second section is the bilinear flow stage with -3/4
in slope of the curve. The third section the matrix linear flow stage with -1/2 in slope of the curve. The fourth section is the
outer boundary controlling stage with the characteristics that gas production declines rapidly.
Transmissivity ratio reflects the capacity of fluid flow from matrix system to fracture system, the larger is, the more easily
fluid flows from matrix into fractures. From the expression of transmissivity ratio in Table 5, we can see that the effect of
gas transport in matrix pores on gas production can be revealed in the term , the larger apparent gas permeability k
gT

corresponds to the larger transmissivity ratio .

Figure 13 The effect of interporosity flow coefficient on type curves

From Figure 13, it can be seen that the effect of on gas production mainly appears in bilinear flow stage and matrix linear
flow stage. In bilinear flow stage and matrix linear flow stage, the dimensionless gas production increases with increasing,
the larger is, the less obvious the characteristics in bilinear flow stage is, the shorter matrix linear flow stage is, and the
sooner flow arrives the outer boundary.

Conclusion
Through determination the flow regime in shale gas reservoirs, investigation on gas transport model for shale matrix, and
production forecasting of shale gas wells in this work, the following conclusions are obtained,
(1) Gas transport in shale matrix pores is not unique, there are 3 possibilities: continuum flow, slip flow and transition flow.
For actual shale gas reservoirs, gas transport pattern can be determined by using the decision chart just knowing the pressure,
temperature, and the pore size distribution.
(2) Only Knudsen diffusion is not suitable for shale gas reservoirs. This is because Knudsen number in shale gas reserovirs is
generally less than 10, especially for such shale gas reservoirs with higher initial reservoir pressure.
(3) Agreements between data from flow models for each flow regime and those estimated by the proposed a new diffusion-
slippage-flow model for organic matter in shale matrix validate the effectiveness of the proposed model for all flow regimes.
(4) The apparent gas permeability model for organic matter and inorganic matter in shale matrix can be applied to calculate
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E-05 1.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.0E+01 1.0E+03
l
g
q
D

lgt
aD
=0.1
=0.01
=0.001
=0.01
y
Df
=0.5
increasing
SPE 167226 17
the apparent gas permeability of shale matrix in case that pore size distribution, water saturation in shale matrix, porosity of
shale matrix block, porosity of organic matter are given. Because the organic content and water effect in inorganic shale
matrix pores are considered, the proposed equation is more reasonable to calculate the apparent gas permeability of shale
matrix.
(5) Gas production decline curve of shale gas wells indicates that gas transport in shale matrix pores significantly affect the
gas production performance in the middle stage of production history.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation Project (U1262113) and Science Foundation of China
University of Petroleum, Beijing (YJ RC-2013-37). We also recognize the support of MOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum
Engineering in China University of Petroleum (Beijing), The Research Institute of Yanchang Petroleum Group, and the
Center for Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin to this paper.

Nomenclature
= Mean free path of gas molecules, m;

B
= Boltzmann constant, which is equal to 1.3805 10
-23
J /K;
T = Temperature, K;
p = Pressure, Pa;

m
= Molecular collision diameter (effective diameter) of the gas molecules, m;
D = Mean diameter of the pore, m;
v
m
= Gas velocity in shale matrix pores, m/s;
k

= Permeability of the shale matrix, m

2
;
p
m
= Pressure in shale matrix pores, Pa;

g
= Gas viscosity, Pas.
(k
g
)
Slip
= Aapparent gas permeability in slip flow regime, m
2
;
k

= Absolute permeability of rock, m

2
;

g
= Mean free path of gas molecules, m;
D = Pore diameter, m;
c = Proportionality factor, dimensionless.

v
= Tangential momentum-accommodation coefficient, dimensionless;
J
a
= Slip mass flow rate of gas, kg/s/m
2

J
D
=Knudsen diffusion mass rate of gas, kg/s/m
2
;
(k
g
)
Transition
= Apparent gas permeability in transition flow regime, m
2
;
k
l
= Liquid permeability, m
2
;
Kn = Knudsen number, dimensionless;
J
Kn
= Mass flux of gas component i, kg/s/m
2
;
D
Kn
= Knudsen diffusivity coefficient, m
2
/s;
i
n = The density gradient of gas component i, kg/m
4
.
v = Gas flow velocity, m/s.
(k
g
)
Knudsen
= Apparent gas permeability in free-molecule flow regime, m
2
;
= Gas viscosity, Pa.s;

avg
= Average gas density, kg/m
3
;
f = Weight coefficient, dimensionless;
k
inorganic
= Apparent gas permeability in inorganic matrix matter, m
2
;

g
= Mean free path of gas molecules, m;

inorganic
= Porosity of inorganic matter, fraction;

inorganic,0
= The initial porosity of inorganic matter, fraction;

k
gT
= Total apparent gas permeability, m
2
;
= Organic matter content in shale matrix, fraction;

0
= The initial porosity of the whole shale matrix block, fraction;

organic
= Porosity of organic matter, fraction;
D
organic
= Diameter of organic matter pores, m;
D
inorganic,0
= The initial diameter of inorganic matter pores, m;
S
w,inorganic
= Water saturation in the inorganic matter, fraction;
S
w
= Water saturation in the whole shale matrix block, fraction;
= Tortuosity of the shale matrix, dimensionless
t
a
= Pseudo-time, dimensionless;

m
= Pseudo-pressure in matrix pores, Pa/s;
C
tm
= Total compressibility in matrix, Pa
-1
;
18 SPE 167226
C
f
= Compressibility of matrix system, Pa
-1
;
C
g
= Compressibility of gas, Pa
-1
;
C
d
= Desorption compressibility of gas, Pa
-1
.

f
= Pseudo-pressure in fractures, Pa/s;
C
tf
= Total compressibility in fractures, Pa
-1
;
C
r
= Compressibility of fracture system, Pa
-1
;
s = Variable in Laplace space.

References
Agarwal, R.K., Yun, K.Y., Balakrishnan, R. Beyond NavierStokes: Burnett equations for flows in the continuumtransition
regime. Physics of Fluids, 2001, 13: 3061.
Ambrose, R.J ., Hartman, R.C., Diaz-Campos, M., et al. 2010. New Pore-scale Considerations in Shale Gas in Place
Calculations. Paper SPE 131772 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsbrugh, Pennsylvania, USA,
23-25 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131772-MS.
Bello R.O. 2009. Rate Transient Analysis In Shale Gas Reservoirs With Transient Linear Behaviour, [Dissertation], Texas A
&M U., College Station, Texas.
Civan, F., Rai, C. S., and Sondergeld, C. H. Shale-Gas Permeability and Diffusivity Inferred by Improved Formulation of
Relevant Retention and Transport Mechanisms, Transport in Porous Media, 2011, 86 (3), 925-944. doi:10.1007/s11242-
010-9665-x.
Clarkson, C.R., Nobakht, M., Kaviani, D., and Ertekin, T. 2011. Production Analysis of Tight Gas and Shale Gas Reservoirs
Using the Dynamic-Slippage Concept, paper SPE 144317 presented at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1416 J une. SPE 144317-MS.
Clarkson, C.R., Qanbari, F., Nobakht, M., and Heffner, L. 2012a. Incorporating Geomechanical and Dynamic Hydraulic
Fracture Property Changes into Rate-Transient Analysis: Example from the Haynesville Shale, paper SPE 162526
presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October 1
November. doi:10.2118/162526-MS.
Clarkson, C.R., Nobakht, M., Kaviani, D., and Ertekin, T. Production Analysis of Tight-Gas and Shale-Gas Reservoirs Using
the Dynamic-Slippage Concept, SPE Journal, 2012b, 17 (1): 230-242. SPE 144317-PA.
Curtis, J .B. Fractured Shale-Gas Systems. AAPG, 2002, 86(11): 1921-1938.
Dahaghi, A.K. Reservoir Modeling of New Albany Shale: [dissertation]. West Virginia University, 2010.
Ertekin, T., King, G.R., and Schwerer, F.C. Dynamic Gas Slippage: A Unique Dual-Mechanism Approach to The Flow of
Gas in Tight Formations, SPE Formation Evaluation, 1986, 43-52. SPE 12045-PA.
Fathi, E., Tinni, A., and Akkutlu, I.Y. 2012. Shale Gas Correction to Klinkenberg Slip Theory, paper SPE 154977 presented
at the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 5-7 J une. doi: 10.2118/154977-
MS.
Heidemann, R.A., J eje, A.A., and Mohtadi, F. 1984. An Introduction to the Properties of Fluids and Solids, University of
Calgary Press, Calgary, AB.
Howard, J .J . Porosimetry Measurement of Shale Fabric and Its Relationship to Illite/Smectite Diagenesis. Clays and Clay
Minerals, 1991, 39(4): 355-361.
J avadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M. Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 2007, 46 (10), 55-61. doi: 10.2118/ 10.2118/07-10-06.
J avadpour, F. Nanopores and Apparent Permeability of Gas Flow in Mudrocks (Shales and Siltstone). JCPT, 2009, 48(8): 16-
21.
Kalantari, A.D. and Mohaghegh, S.D. 2011. Numerical Simulation and Multiple Realizations for Sensitivity Study of Shale
Gas Reservoir, paper SPE 141058 presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA, 26-29 March.
Katsube, T.J . Statistical Analysis of Pore-size Distribution Data of Tight Shales from The Scotian Shelf. Current Research,
Part E. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 1992: 92-1.
Klinkenberg, L.J . 1941. The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases, Drilling and Production Practice, API,
200-213.
Michel, G.G., Sigal, R.F., Civan, F., and Devegowda, D. 2011. Parametric Investigation of Shale Gas Production Considering
Nano-Scale Pore Size Distribution, Formation Factor, and Non-Darcy Flow Mechanisms, paper SPE 147438 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 Oct2 Nov, SPE 147438-MS, doi:
10.2118/147438-MS.
Nelson, P.H. Pore-throat Sizes in Sandstones, Tight Sandstones, and Shales. AAPG bulletin, 2009, 93(3): 329-340.
Ozkan, E., Brown, M., Raghavan, R., et al. and Kazemi, H. Comparison of Fractured Horizontal-well Performance in
Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2009, 14(2): 248-259. doi:
10.2118/121290-PA.
Reed, R.M. Nanopores in the Mississippian Barnett Shale: Distribution, Morphology, and Possible Genesis. GSA Denver
SPE 167226 19
Annual Meeting, 2007, 39(6): 358.
Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H.F., Cruden, B.A., and Meyyappan, M. Modeling Gas Flow through Microchannels and
Nanopores. Journal of Applied Physics, 2003, 93(8): 4870-4879.
Rushing, J .A., Oliver, S.J .P., Scheper, R.J . 1989. Reservoir Simulation of the Antrim Shale in the Michigan Basin, paper SPE
19313 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, 24-27 October.
Rushing J .A., Perego A.D., Sullivan R.B., and Blasingame, T.A. 2007. Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT
Reservoir Conditions: Use and Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology. paper SPE 109625 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14 November.
Sakhaee-Pour, A. and Bryant, S.L. Gas Permeability of Shale. SPE Reservoir Engineering and Formation Evaluation, 2012,
8, 401-409. doi:10.2118/146944-PA.
Schepers, K.C., Gonzalez, R.J ., Koperna, G.J ., and Oudinot, A.Y. 2009. Reservoir Modeling in Support of Shale Gas
Exploration, paper SPE 123057 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 31 May-3 J une.
Song, B. and Ehlig-Economides, C. 2011. Rate-Normalized Pressure Analysis for Determination of Shale Gas Well
Performance, paper SPE 144031 presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 J une.
Song, B. Pressure Transient Analysis and Production Analysis for New Albany Shale Gas Wells. Texas A&M University,
2013.
Swami, V. and Settari, A. 2012. A Pore Scale Gas Flow Model for Shale Gas Reservoir, paper SPE 155756 presented at the
Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 57 J une. doi:10.2118/155756-MS.
Swami, V., Clarkson, C.R., and Settari, A. 2012. Non Darcy Flow in Shale Nanopores: Do We Have a Final Answer? paper
SPE 162665 presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October
1 November. doi:10.2118/162665-MS.
Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W. The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1949, 1(12): 305-324.
Wang, F.P. and Reed, R.M. 2009. Pore Networks and Fluid Flow in Gas Shales. Paper SPE 124253 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4-7 October.
Ziarani, A.S. and Aguilera, R. Knudsens Permeability Correction for Tight Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 2012,
91(1): 239-260.
Zuber, M.D., Williamson, J .R., Hill, D.G., Sawyer, W.K., Frantz, J r., J .H. 2002. A Comprehensive Reservoir Evaluation of A
Shale Reservoir-The New Albany Shale, paper SPE 77469 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October. doi: 10.2118/77469-MS.

SI Metrc Conversion Factors
ft 3.048* E01 = m
scf/D 2.863 640 E02 = standard m
3
/d
millidarcy 9.869 233 E+14 = m
2

lbf/in.
2
(psi) 6.894 757 E+03 = Pa
cp 1.0* E03 = Pas
lb 2.2046 E+00 = kg