Research paperLaboratory characterization of the porosity and permeability of gas shales using the crushed shale method: Insights from experiments and numerical modelling

- A round-robin test is reported where 6 shales were analysed by 4 laboratories.
- Permeabilities measured by each laboratory using the crushed shale method (CSM) do not correlate.
- Permeabilities vary by orders of magnitude depending on how the data are interpreted.
- Results from the CSM method do not correlate with measurements made on core plugs.
- Pressure transient results from CSM experiments were inverted using analytical and numerical models.

Gas production from shale resource plays has transformed the USA energy market. Despite the knowledge gained from the analysis of large amounts of shale core, appraisal of shale gas resource plays requires a large number of wells to be drilled and tested. Ideally, core analysis results would provide an indication of both the gas filled porosity and permeability of shale resource plays, which could then be used to reduce the number of wells needed during appraisal. A combination of laboratory experiments, numerical modelling and a round-robin test have been conducted to assess the validity of the crushed shale method (CSM), which has been widely used in industry to assess the porosity and permeability of shale. The results suggest that the CSM can provide reasonably precise estimates of porosity measured at ambient stress if a standard sample cleaning method is adopted; although a reliable method to correct these values to subsurface conditions needs to be developed. The CSM does not, however, appear to provide useful information on shale permeability. A round-robin test shows that differences of up to four orders of magnitude in permeability were provided by different laboratories when analysing the same sample. These huge differences seem to occur due to a combination of errors in calculating permeabilities from pressure transients, differences in the way that permeability is calculated as well as uncertainties regarding the effective size of crushed shale particles. However, even if standardized, the CSM may not be particularly useful for characterizing the flow capacity of shale because it is insensitive to the presence of high permeability zones that would control flow in the subsurface.