Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

6200 N. Central Expwy.

Dallas, fex. 75206

C(!WERSPE

6071

Prediction
of the Permeabi Iity of
Fragmented
Oi I Shale Bed during
with Hot Gas
In - Situ Retorting

By
R. B. NeedhemtMemberSP&AIMEtPhillipsPetroleum
CO.
THKPAPERISSUBJECT
@Copyright

TOCORRECTK)N
1976

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and FWroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 5 Ist Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of RXroleum
Engineers of AIME, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract ofnotmore
than 300 words. //lustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented, ~blicatian elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYorthe
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGiNEERSJOURNALis
usualiygrantedupon
request to the Editor of the appropriate journal, provided agreenmnt to give proper credit is made, Discussion of
this paper is invited,

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The initialpermeability
of en in-situbed
of brokenshalewillbe morethanadequate
for
the injection
of heatingfluidstbut retorting
&asticallyreducesthe permeability
as a result
of compaction
causedby heatingthe oil shale
underan overbwdenload. To estimatethe
permeability
of the fragmented
ehalebed during
retortingthe influence
of shaleparticlesizet
I.ithostatic
pressuret
temperature
historytand
shalerichnesswas determined
by laboratory
experiments.
Theseexperimental,
datawere
Two compaction
ce21sp1.25end 5 in. in
correlated
andthenextrapolated
to a larger
diametert
wereusedfor the retorting
experimentsin whichthepermeability
of the compactedaverageparticlesizeto predictthe permeabili~
of fragmented
shalebedsanticipated
for
bed was determined
for averageshaleparticle
in-situretorting.GreenRiveroil
sizefromO,of+6 to 1.0in.f shalerichnessfrom commercial
18 to 58 gal~tontI.ithostatic
loadfrom70to
shalefromthe Piceance
CreekBasinin Colorado
was utilizedthroughout
thesestudies.
W psi ad heat% ratefrom 5 to 1~ F per
hour. A correlation
was developed
thatpredict~
APPARATUS
AND PRCXXXJRE
the permeability
usingthe lithostatic
pressurejEXPHIIMENTAL
shalerichn~ss
? andparticlesizefor a shale
heatingrateof 10 F per hour. The modified
Lsr~e-Scale
Compaction
Cell
Kozenyequation
was usedas the theoretical
basisforthe correlation
andthe measured
A simplified
sectional
viewof the lsrg6permeabil.ities
couldbe predicted
withan
scalecompaction
cellis shownin Fig. 1. The
cellis cylindrical
andholdsabout5,COC to
average errorof 21 percent.
7~OOC
gmof crushedshaletdepending,upon
the
shalerichness.The procedure
was to fillthe
cellwithcrushedshaletplacethe plungerinto
the top of the cent andthenput the cell.
into
References
andillustrations
at endof paper.

The operability
of in-situoil-shale
retorting
has beenestablished
by retorting
beds
of crushedshaleunderlithostatic
loads
simulating
the columnloadsto be encountered
in
compaction
practical.
operations.The resulting
and reduction
in permeability
werecorrelated
to predictthe finalpermeability
behaviorof en
actualfragment
ed in-situbed withparticles
6 in, in diameter.
averaging

PREDICTION
OF THE PERMEABIIZTY
OF A FRACMINTEI)
OILQUAT

X! Rti!ll

nTll?ThW2

T1l-fXTTH

lWi!lWRfPTNfl

WTTU

UfYP

cAQ

QD17

LfY7

with
a hydraulic
press. The presswas equipped
of 0.046and0.23in.
withan oil accumulator
forthe hy&aulicdrive averageparticlediameters
wereusedin
allof
the
largecompaction
cell
thatwas pressured
to the desiredpressurewith
runsi3xcept
one. However,log-normal
distribunitrogen.In thismanner,the requiredload
couldbe appliedto the crushedshaleto simu- tionscouldnot be usedin the smallcompaction
sellbecausethe cellwouldnot holdthe large
lateanydesiredI.ithostatic
pressureto to
particles
necessmyto completethe distribution
1,000psi. Afterthe desiredlithostatic
pressurewas applied,a continuous
gas purgeof 0.5
The RESULTS
scf/hour
of carbondioxidewas established.
shalewas nextpreheated
to 200F at a heating
The primaryexperimental
resultswerethe
rateof 75 F per hour,thenheatedat a rateof
of the compacted
shaleandits
10 oF per hourto the finaltesttemperature, permeability
uponlithostatic
pressure,
shale
whichwas usually8CQ F. The shaletemperaturedependence
averageshaleparticlesize,and
was maintained
at 8CX)F for at least2 hoursto richness,
history.In addition,
it was
ensurecompleteretorting
of the shale. By reg- temperature
oil in the
ulationof the voltageon eachheater,the tem- observedthatthepresenceof-liquid
affectedthepermeperatureat the fourthermocouple
wellscouldbe largecellduringretorting
abilityto gas;thatis, a relativepermeability
maintained
within2 to 5 F afterthe preheat
effectwas observed.
phwe was completed.
The compaction
of the shalebed and the
Lithostatic
Pressure
permeability
of a sectionof the bed were
measuredthroughout
eachtest. The permeability
The lithostatic
pressureis the pressure
as a resultof
was measuredby regulating
the flowrateof the exertedon the shaleparticles
carbondioxideto the desiredvalueand
~he weightof theoverburden
of fragmented
shale. I@. 7 expresses
the 3il,hostaticpresmeasuring
the pressuredropacrossone setof
sureas a functionof the ave.~~e
porosityof
the pressuretapsshownin Fig. 1.
the fragmented
shalebed,the positionof the
calculation
pointin the bed,andthe average
The oil generated
fromheatingthe shale
richnessof theoverZ@ngfragmented
shale. For
flowedout throughthe bottomfritandwas
the lithostatic
pressureis calculated
collected
at atmospheric
pressurein a graduatedexample,
psiaat a depthof 600 ft belowthe surcylinder
positioned
at the exitof a coldwater as 1+60
faceof a fragmented
shalebed havingaporosity
trap. The gasesthenpassedthrougha dry ice
trapthatwas precautionary,
sinceit collected of 20 percentand an averageshalerichnessof
25 gal/tonoThe densityof the shalewas
onlynegligible
quantities
of oil.
obtainedfroma correlation
by Stanfield
et al.

The primaryvariables
thatwereinvestiThe influence
of the I.ithostatic
pressure,
gatedwiththe large-ecale
compaction
cellwere
shaleparticlesize~shalerichness,
and litho- appliedduringthe heating,uponthe final
oil-shale
permeability
is majorand
staticpressure.In addition,
a few exploratorycompacted
inFi
testswereconducted
in whichthe temperature is showngraphically
2. For example,
the permeability
of a con :edbedof 27 gall
historyof the shalewas varied.
ton shaledecreased
from
200darciesat a
lithostatic
pressureof 1~..
psi to lessth&Chj
Small-Scale
Compaction
Cell
darciesat 60C psi. It cenbe concluded
thattk
in the lithostatic
presThe designof the small-scale
compaction bed heightas r;flected
cellwas similarto the largecellexceptonly sureis a majordetermining
factorin estabretainedby fragmented
one heaterwas used,the shalechargewas 30 to lishingthe permeability
40 gm of crushedehale,andthe shalebed was
shaleafterbeingheatedto 800 F to recover
the shaleoil.
cooledto roomtemperature
beforethe permeabilitywas measured.A gaspurgerateof 0.1
Oil-Shale
Richness
scf/hour
of heliumwas maintained
throughout
eachtest.
The shalericlnessrangestudiedwas 18 Go
58 gal/ton.Fig.2 showsthe influence
ShaleSamle Premration
of shale
richnessuponthe permeability
of the compacted
The shalewas obtainedfromtheAnvil
frompreviouswork showshalec As predictable
ing thatthe richershaleshavelowercompressi~
Pointsmineat Rifle,Colo.,as crushedshale
andwas sortedby colorin orderto minimizethe strengths~
the retainedbed permeability
2 These
as the richnessincreases.
variation
in richness.The sortedsampleswere decreases
of shalerichness
crushedto lessthanaboutl~in. in diameter datashowthatthe influence
as the lithostatic
presend a portiontakenforFischerassayanalysis. ia equallyas important
The crushedshalewas separatedbyscreening
end we ~det=mi~ngtheret~edpermeabi~ty
of
recombined
to producethedesiredparticlesize the shale.
distribution.
Log-normal
distributions
for

SPE 6071

R. B. 1 EDHAM
ShaleParticleSize

bheinfluence
of lithostatic
pressure,
shale
richness~
end averageparticlesize. Therefore,
Lo savetime,the basicinvestigation
of particl
size,1.5.thostatic
pressure,
and shale richness I
in the largecompaction
cellwas-conducted
at a
heatingrateof 10 F per hour, It is realized
thattheseretainedpermeabil.ities
obtainedfor
a heatingrateof 10 oF per hour will be slightl
lowerthanthosefor heatingratesof 0.2 to 6
oF per hour,whichare anticipated
for an in-sit
bed,but the errorwillbe on the conservative
side.
I
RELATIVXPERMEABIIJ.TY
EFFFCTS

The averageparticlesizetha+,
willexist
in an underground
bed of rubbl.ized
oil shaleis
unknown;however,fromrooffallsin oil-shale
mines3and fromexperience
in oil-shale
mining,
it is estimated
thatthe averageshaleparticle
dismeterin an in-situbedwillbe between005
and 2 ft~ A-shalebed withan averageparticle
sizeof thismagnitude
wouldbe impractical
for
studyin laboratory
experiments;
therefore,
beds
havingaverageparticlesizesfrom0.0A6to 1.0
in, werestudied.The influence
of average
particlesizewas established
for the 0.0A6to
to an
l.O-tn.sizersnge, thenextrapolated
Wing the retorting
of the shalein the I
averageparticlesizeof 6 in. to predict
l=ge compaction
cell,the shale-bed
compaction
beds.
behaviorin actualunderground
andpermeability
weremeasured.A directcorr-
andpermeTableI is a summaryof the experimental lationbetweenthebed compaction
of
dataon the influence
of averageparticlesize abilitywas possibleuntila temperature
Thesetests about700 F was reached~At thistemperature,
uponcompacted
shalepermeability.
oil generation
was so rapidthatgravitydrainshowthatfor a givenshalerichnessthe
couldnot mainretainedpermeability
increases
withincreasing age at the lowerpermeabilities
lowGil saturation
to avoid
averageparticlesizeat low lithostatic
pres- taina sufficiently
pressureincreased, significant
influence
of t oil saturation
on
sures. As the lithostatic
the increasein permeability
withincreasing
the permeability
to gas. Tnereforet
the effecto gas decreased
temporarily
particlesizediminished.Thatis? for a given tivepermeability
by pyrolysis
shalerichnessthe scale-up
of retainedperme- untilthe rateof oil generation
abilitywithparticlesizeendedas the litho- was slowerthanthe gravitydrainage.The
of thisdecreasefor a heatingrateof
staticpressureincreased,
eventhoughthe com- magnitude
pactedshalestillhas substantial
permeability.10 F per hourdependsuponthe shale-bed
permeability
andthe shalerichness?Fig.9
For example,
thej? to 40 gal/tonshalehas
permeability
as the temperaalmostno scale-up
in permeability
withparticl( showsthe shale-bed
eizeat a lithostatic
pressureof 300 psi even tureof the shalewas raisedto 800 oF. The
effectis shownby the
thoughthe retainedpermeability
is 4 d=cies~ relativepermeability
dashedcurve. The solidcurvewas obtainedbya
The scale-up
of retainedermeability
with
correlation
of the shale-bed
deformation
with
particlesizefor 27galrton shaledid not
the permeability
andtemperature.-he
relative
exhibita limitinglithostatic
pressureless
permeability
effectwas experienced
as a tempothan600 psi,whichwas the maximumpressure
rarydecreasein permeability
not associated
tested.
witha corresponding
amountof bed compaction.
Sincethepermeability
of the fragmented
shale
Temperature
Histor~
in an in-situbed willbe muchlargerthsnthat
obtainedin theseexperiments
becausethe averIn the recoveryof shaleoil fromfragage particlesizeswillbe from0.5 to 2 ft as
mentedoil shalein an underground
bed by the
comparedwith0.29in., end the heatingrate
injection
of hot gases,the timerequiredto
willbe slower,the relativepermeability
effect
heatthe oil shaleto about800 Fwill range
is uniqueto the laboratory
tests.
frommonthsto years. The rateat whichthe
shalewouldbe heateddependsuponthe gas mass
DEVELOPMENT
OF CORRELATION
fluxrate,the averageparticlesizeof the
snalev
andthe verticaldistanceof the shale
The objective
of the developmatof a
fromthe top of thebed. Thisheatingrateis
was the calculation
of the compacted
estimated
fromheattransfercalculations
to be correlation
shale-bed
permeability
underconditions
expected
in the rangeof 0.2 to 6 F per hour.4 The
utilizing
influence
of heatingrateuponthe permeability in an in-situbed duringretorting,
a knowledge
of shalerichness,
I.ithostatic
presof the compacted
shalebed afterbeingheated
to tWO F was investigated
in the small-scale sure?averageshaleparticlesize,and shale
heatingrateas theyvarywithdepthin the bed.
cell,andthe datasre surmnarized
in TableII.
Reducingthe heatingratetwenty-fold
from 100
ModifiedKozenyEuuation
oF per hourto 5 F per hourincreased
the
retainedpermeability
of the shalebed twofold.
The modifiedKozenyequation
was usedas a
Thatis, the slowerheatingratesresultedin
starting
basisfor developing
a correlation
of
greaterretainedpermeability.
The effectof
variableof compacted
permeabi~ty
the heatingrateis secondary
whencompsredwitl the dependent

PREDICTION
OF THE PERNEABILXTY
OF A FMOMENTEDOILSHALEREDMIRTNG
TN-SITU
~TH HOT GAS
-.. - ---------- --- RETORTING
------

4t

SPE 6071

equation
to replacetheporositywouldgive
tiththe independent
vaviables
of shalerich~ess~lithostatic
pressure,
averagebed particle
Bize,end shaleheatingrate. One formof the
1(= ~ # Jl - P/sJ3beo *e** #o (3)
Kozenyequation
is
(iys$

k .a,nk

S*****

* (1)

Since

the exactformof the porosityrelationshipin theKozenyequation

is opento considerablequestion,
thisfunctional
relationship
was
TLhis
equation
was originally
intendedto pr~ct relaxedto providea moregeneralEq. 5, In
thepermeability
of an unconsolidated
part$cle addition,
sincethe minimumstrength
has not
bedsystem.The application
of t~s equation
to beenmeasuredas a functionof shalerichness
compacted
oil-shale
systemsis shownin Fig. 40
andtemperature
history$the minim strength
In thesedatathe lithcstatic
pressureranged
(S)willbereplacedby a minimumstrength
from130to 720 psi andthe heatingratefrom2 factor(F), whichwill.
arbitrarily
be given
to 100oF per hour, while the average particle a valueof unityfor 27 galltonoil shaleheated
sizeandrichnessof the shalewereconstant. from2W %? to 800 oF at a rateof 10 F per
Thecurvein Fig.4 is theKozenyequation,
hour. Withthesemodifications,
theKozeny
wherethe terma dn was determined
to yieldthe equation
now becomes
bestfit. The datamatchshowsthatthe corn=
factor
pattedshalepxosity is the determining
,,6
.,..,0
in establishing
the permeability
for a particu(4)
k s$nG;
lar shalerichnessandinitialp=ticle size.
r
()(}
Thevariables
of I.ithostatic
pressureand heatingratearethusreflected
in the final
whereG(P/F)is a specificfunctionto be deterporosity.Althougha goodmatchof the datahas minedfroma seriesof compaction
testsusinga
beenobtainedthroughthe use of the interreference
particlesizeandkeepingthe temperaparticleporosity,
the prediction
of permeturehistoryconstant.
abilitynow requiresthe prediction
of the
~rosity. Sincetheporositywouldbe justan
Severs:important
features
wereincorporate
intermediate
parameter,
it was decidedto elimi- intothe ~~iysise First,the compacted shale
nateporosityfromthe correlation.The final permeability
is uniquelydependent
uponthe cominterparticle
~rosity probablyis determined pattedbed porosityandthe averageparticle
by the lithostatic
pressureand the minimum
diameter.Second,the porosityofthe bed
compressive
strength
of the shaleduringthe
dependsuponthe lithostatic
loadand the
heatingprocess.Fig.5 showsatypicalshale minimumcompressive
strength.Stateddiffercompressive
strength
behaviorresulting
from
ently,the lithostatic
loadthatcan be
a particular
temperature
history.
supported
by a shalebed can be determined
by a
productof the minimumcompressive
strength
and
To obtainthe compressive
strengths
the averagesectional
particlecontactarea.
reportedin Fig. 5$ coresof oil shalethat
Third,the minimumcompressive
strength
is a
were 1 in. in diameter
wereplacedin a hydrau- function
of the shalerichnessand temperature
e ~storym
licpressto determine
the loadat whichruptur
Utilizingtheseideas,the generalized
occurred.Electricheaterswereusedto attain Eqc 4 has beendeveloped.In orderto utilize
the testtemperature
and a purgewith an inert thisequation,
thefunctionalformofG(P/F)and
gasusedto preventoxidation
of the cores. A
the valuesof F and n mustbe known,
significant
effectof shalerichnesson compres
t CO~~~ON
sivestrength
was evident.The transi.tionpoin
d
of the shalestrength
factor,whichis discusse
later,liesbetweenrichnesses
19.0and 27.6,
The datausedto developthe correlation
history
qualitatively
explaining
the relativestrength are shownin Fig.6. The temperature
differences
betweenthethreegradesof shale. for allof the correlated
datawas the same;
i.e.,the shalewas preheated
to 200 F at a
The minimumstrength
dependsupontempera- rateof 75 F per hourandthenheatedto 80Q %
turehistoryand shalerichness.For the
at a rateof 10 F per hour. The dataobtained
development
of the correlation
it was surmised on shalebedswithan averageparticlediameter
thatthe finalporositydependeduponthe rela- of O*23in, werepresented
in Fig,2. These
tivemagnitudes
of the lithostatic
pressureand datacanbe fittedto a singlecurveby the
theminimumcompressive
strength.As a first
introduction
of the shalestrength
factor(F).
approximation
therelationship
wouldbe of the
The solidlineand circles in Fig. 6 showthis
form
result,andFig.7 showsthe variation
of F witl
shalerichnessrequiredto producethisresult
S(I.-$)=P.
. . . . . . . . . (2) for the one temperature
historyutilized.Fig.
7 includesdatafor particlesizesotherthan
Utilizing
thisrelationship
in theKozeny
thatof Fig.2. As was statedin theprevious

(1 ..$)2

SPE 6071

R. B. NEQ)HAM

functionG(P/F).Thismethodofpredicting
section,
the shalestragthfactor(F)was
arbitrarily
assigneda valueof one for 27 gall permeabilities
in rubbli~ed
shalebedswas used
to calculate
the permeability
behaviorfor
ton shaleheatedat a rateof 10 F per lmr.
particles
averaging
6 in. in diameter,
anticiskin beds. The
Sincethe 0.23-in.averageparticlediame- patedin actualrubblized
terparticlesizewas chosenfor the reference resultsare shownin Fig.9.
particlesizeand a heatingrateof 10 oF per
To expeditethe,calculation,
procedure,
houras thereference
heatingrate,thenthe
third-order
polynomials
havebeendetermined
to
curvein Fig.6 is the.function
G(P~), The
nexttaskis the prediction
of n, the particle describethe plotsin Figs.6, 7, and8. These
equations
are limitedto valuesfor the shale
sizescale-up
factor. SinceG(P/F)is now
strength
factorF~ of one end greater.With
known,the valuesof n can be determined
from
strength
factorvaluesof lessthanonetthe
MC 4for all.
the datawithaveragepwticles
sizesotherthan0.23in.,whichwas the refer- particlesizescale-upfactor,n, is a function
of bed heightin addition
to the strength
factor
enceperticlesize. Thesevaluesof n are
Insufficient
datafor thismorecomplexrelation
correlated
withthe shalestrength
factorin
factorsare lessthanone~
Fig.8. At valuesof the shalestrengthfactor Ship$wherestrength
precludecurvefittingin thisregion, Shale
greaterthen1.0,theparticlesizescale-up
richnessis, therefore,
limitedto 2.7gal/ton
factoris dependent
onlyuponF; however,at
and less. Withthisin mind,the strength
facto
valuesof F below1.O$the influence
of the
lithostatic
pressureis shown. For the gener- iS givenby
atedvaluesof n endF, the agreement
of all.the
P= -(O.39O2)R+1O.O33for~ <22 . (5)
reduceddatawiththe universal
function
G(Pfi)
iS shownin Fig. 60
~d ~ :;-(,9.16667 X lQ-3)R3I(0.700)R2
The completed
correlation
is represented
by
- (1708258)R
+(1520k2A)
. . . (6)
information
presented
in Figs.6, 7, and 8,
whichis usedwithEq. 4 to computepermeability
for22~R~27
Theinformation
neededto utilizethe correla- The pressurein the shalebed is
tionis averageshalepsrticalsize,shale
richness9
end lithostatic
pressure.In addition,the temperature
historyshouldbe a heatingratein the rangeof 10 oF per hourup to
(7)
600 oF, For application
to an in-situbed where
the heatingratewillbe lessthan 10 F per
The permeability
functionandparticlesize
hour,the permeability
determined
fromthe
scale-up
factorare calculated
by
correlation
willbe lowerthanthe actual
permeability
in the bed. Therefore,
the permeX 10-8)(P/F)3
G(P/F) = exp[-(6.7366
abilitycalculated
fromthe correlation
would
be a lowerlimit. In addition,
sincethe vari+ (8.51266
X10-5)~P1T)2-(0.04338)(P/F)
ablesof particlesize?richnesstand lithostaticpressurearedominant,
the heatingrate
+ ~902~03)1 . (8)
canbe chengedconsiderably
withonly a relativelysmallchangein permeability.
snd
F3- (0.C2928)d+ (002391) F
n _.(0.01187)
The procedure
usedto predictthe permeabilityof a fragmented
bed of shaleretorted
undera lithostatic
pressurewouldbe the
+(0.5033).
. .
, .
(9)
following
steps. First,for theknownshale
richness,
the valueof F (theshalestrength
IQ. Listhen usedto calculate
the final.
shale
factor)for a heatingrateof 10 oF per how
bed permeability
in darcies,with~ = 0.23in.
is obtainedfromFig.7. Second,usingthe
lithostatic
pressureandthe valueof F just
The accuracyof calculated
permeabil.ities
determined~
the valueofG(P/F)is obtained
is significantly
improvedby treatinga shale
fromFig.6. Third,againusingthe lithostatitbedin several.
segments,
preferably
in 50-ft
pressuresndF, a valueof n, the particle
intervals,
providedthatshalerichness datais
sizescale-up
factortis determined
fromFig.8, available.Pressures,
of course,are additive
Fourth,thepermeability
of the shalebed is
as one worksdownwsrd,
fromsegmentto se~ent~
calculated
fromEq. 4, knowingthe average
in the column. The effective
permeabil.ityof
particlediameter(d)of the bed. Reference
to the entirebed is thendeterminedlythe follownowcalcu- ing equation:
%. 4 shows thatthe permeabilityis
latablesinceG(P/F),d, sndn arenow known.
The valueof ~wouldbe 0.23in.,sincethis
k=2i@(li/ki). . . . . . . . . . . (10)
is thepwticle sizeusedto determine
the

RZEDICTION
OF THE PEVEABIIJTYOF A FRAGMENT~OILSHALEBED DURINGIN-SITURIZl?ORTING
WITHHOT GAS

SPE 6071

pated in commercial
in-situretorting,
Thisprocedure
involting
severalintervals
may
be applied when working with eitherthe given
operability
problemscreatedby the lossor
erepredicted
whererichoil shales
plotsor wtththe derivedthird-order
equations.permeability
For quickend approximate
estimates
of rubble- (356al/tin,dependent
uponthe depth)are
bed permeabilities
withonlyone calculation;
a locatednearthe bottomof the bed. By contrast
valueof one-halfthe actualbed heightis used leanshalesret~n adequatepermeability
to
maintainthe retort$ng
process.
to determine
an averagepressure.
Limitations
of theCorrelation

ACKNOWLEWMRW

The authorwishesto expressappreciation

The correlation
fitsthe dataobtainedfrom
the compaction
testswithacceptable
accuracy, to PhillipsPetroleum
Co. forpermission
to
The correlation
predicted
the measuredpermepublishthispaper.
abilitywithan averageerrorof 21 percent~a
mud.mumerrorof 115percent?andwith95 per- NOMINCLATJRE
centof the datawithin50 pemcentof the calcua = parameter
dependent
uponthe shapeand
latedvalue.
specificsurfaceareaof theparticles
in.
The primarylimitations
of the correlation d . weightedaverag(perticledismeter,
~ .weightedaverageparticlesizeusedin the
are in the smallnumberof experimental
data
pointsobtainedat certaincombinations
of the
shalebed for the seriesof teststo
determine
G(P/F),in.
variables,
especially
for shalesricherthani+O
no datawereobtained F = minimumshalestrengthfactor
gal/ton.In particular,
fortheparticlesizescale-up
factorfor shales G = a functionof P/F determined
froma.series
overLO gal/tonor for shalesin the 30- to 40of compaction
testsusingthe reference
gal/tonrangeat lithostatic
pressures
below150
particlesizeandkeepingthe temperature
significsnt
limitation
is
historyconetent
psi. An additional
h = heightof the rubbl.ized
shalebed,ft
the extrapolation
of the correlation
to the
largeparticles
anticipated
duringactualink = permeability
of the entireparticlebed,
of particlesize
darcy
situoperation.The influence
in the 0.046- to I.O-in.rangeon permeability ~ = permeability
of thei-th intervalin the
crushedshalebedt dsrcy
mustbe extended
to severalinchesin orderto
~ = heightof the i-thintervalin the rubblizt
calculate
thepermeability
of en actualbed.
Mostof th;selimitations
essential,couldbe
shalebed,ft
on the psrticlesystem
removedby additional
testsusingthe analysis n E constantdependent
P = I.ithostatic
pressure,
psia
and experimental
methodsa~eady developed
in
R = shalerichness,
gal/ton
thiswork.
S = minimumcompressive
strength
of shale
= interperticle
porosityof thebed system
CONCLUSIONS
t 1 = initialbed porosity
Fromthesetestson the effectsof lithostaticpressure,
shaleric~ess,averageparti- REFIIUiNCliS
cle size,and temperature
historyuponcompacted
1. Stsnfield,
K. E.t Smith,J. k., Smith,H.
shalepermeability
andthe extension
of the
NO, endRobb,W. A.: rOil
Yieldsof Secresultsby correlation
and calcul.ationst
the
following
wereconcluded.
tionsof GreenRiverOil Shalein Colorado,
1954-57,RI5614,USBM,Washington
(1960)
1. The primaryvariables
determining
the
s.
2* Tisot,P. R. endSohns,H. W.: Structural
compacted
shale-bed
permeability
are I.ithostatic
pressure,
shalerichness,
andparticlesize,
Deformation
of GreenRiverOil Shaleas It
Relatesto InAitu Retorting,lt
RI 7576,
withthe temperature
historya secondary
variUSBM,Washington
(1971).
able,
3. Iomberd~D. B.: Ttecovering
Oil fromShale
2. A modification
of the Kozenyequation
withNuclearIkplosives,tl
J. Pet.Tech.
canbe usedas a basisfor developing
a corre(Aug.1965)877-882.
lationfor thepredictionofthe permeability l+.Needham,R. B,, JudzisJr.,Arvidsend
YieldandQuality
correlation
Cornelius,
A. J.: lrOil
of compacted
shale. The developed
fromSimulated
InAitu Retorting
of Green
predictsthe measuredpermeability
withan
RiverOil Shale,~t
to be published.
averageerrorof 21 percent,a maximumerrorof
115percent,andwith95 percentof the data
5. Scheidegger,
A. E.; The Physicsof Flow
within50 percentof the prediction.
Throwh PorousMedia,RevisedEd.,The
Macmillan
Co.,New York (1960)128-131.
3. For largefragmented
shalebedsantici-

N::
. . . . N::::
...

::>::s

::::s:
::1:::

STEEL
PLUNGER _

THERMOCOUPLE
WELL
........,.
:j:j:;j.
~
INSULATION
ii

ll[:j::i:j

!-

PREikiRE

lNSULAi10N
\ a

::.::.

TRAMSITE>

F,g.

27

FRIT

k3.30~

1 -

Large

SC?il@

compaction

P- L17HosTATK

Cell.

F!g.

shale

Effect

of

richness

on

pREssuRE-psI

Iithostatic
retorted

shale

pressure
and
bed permeabil

ity.

SMALL SCALE COMPACTION OF SHALE

~
woo
RICHMESS ,
OALLON PER TON
woo
40W
LITHOSTATIC
PRESSURE , PSI
v
720
L
670

too -

to -

O
9

1.0 -

I
%x)

0.23 INCH AVERAOE

PARTICLE DIAMETER
HEATING RATE fO*F/HR
1
404

1
500

1
600

SHALE TEMPERATURE
Fig,
3 - Permeability
du~lnq
retort
lnq.

of

..

0-

shale

560
4S0

20W

320
220
130

fwo

oo~m

TIME - HOURs (TIME HELD AT 7wFj

RANIX OF HEATING RATES FROM

2WF TO 600 F IS 2.0 -100F/HR
1

FINAL INTERPARTICLE

POROSITY - %

bed
Fig.
4 relationship

Permeability
- poroeity
for
compacted
oi I

f9.o
27.6
34.6

TEST TEMPERATURE - 7W F
HEATINO RATE T07WF-160F
PER HOUR
ALL ROCK FAILURES WERE BRITTLE

30W

60

- f

o-

7W

shale.

Fig.
River

oil

Compressive
shale.

strength

of

Green

nooo
AVERAGE
PARTICLE

SHALE
2Ym&Ql? Y&r
i6.3
17,6

3000

&

91

Nwwoo
-.
a

X&.!!!
0.23
OC04C
0.054
0.2s
0.046
0.054
f.W
0.23
0.046

26.s

a
~

27.6

*W
z

3,4HEATING RATE TO
600F - tO f/HR

Y+&!.!!

0.23

1.
L
s

3,0 -

L
L
s
L
L
L
L

2.6 -

2.2 -

t8

#
30 g
~
m
s
s
2
g
-

SHALE HEATING RATE FROM 200F

TO SW*F 10F/HR

td -

10
to 3.0 0.6-

AV

I
2W

I
400

P/F -

General

l\
SOD

Part!cle
factor

rel

I
w

1
!Ooo

J
!200

LITHOSTATIC ?RESSU RE (PSI)

STRENGTH FACTOR
ized

permcabi

f - SHALE STRENGTH

F,g.
8
strength

A\

0.3 &

Fig.

VV

aizc
scale-up
at ionship
for

I ity

o.2~

;0

SHALE RICHNESS
Fig.
7 richness
shale.

1
40

1
30

J
60

- OALLONS PER TON

Shale
strength
relationship

for

factor
- shale
compacted
01 I

function.

FAC1OR

factor
compacted

shale
oi I

CRUSHED SHALE 8ED HCIOHT,

FT.

sha,l e.
Fig.
9 - Calculated
shale
having
average
i nchea.

permeabi
partiole

I Ity
for
diameter

crushed
of SIX