Microfluidics reveals that pore structure heavily influences microscopic transport and recovery efficiency.
During the process of oil extraction, the urgent need for unconventional oil resources is driven by escalating global demand and the progressive depletion of conventional reserves. Shale oil represents a critical unconventional resource, with recovery efficiency being fundamentally constrained by the multiscale heterogeneity of shale reservoirs characterized by intricate networks of microscale fractures and nanoscale pores. To unravel pore structure impacts on microscopic transport phenomena, this study employed microfluidic chips replicating authentic shale pore architectures with pore depths as small as 200 nm to conduct immiscible flooding, constant volume depletion, and huff-n-puff experiments under representative reservoir conditions, with experiments reaching a maximum pressure of 40 MPa. The results show that large-pore and fine-throat structures create dual flow restrictions: the abrupt change in pore throat size amplifies the local flow resistance relative to the homogeneous structure, leading to a 78.09% decline in displacement velocity, while Jamin effect-induced capillary resistance reduces recovery efficiency, and even prevents some crude oil in the pore from being driven out. Slug flow occurred in the experiment, with calculated capillary numbers (Ca) of 0.0015 and 0.0026. This slug flow impedes microscopic transport efficiency, and lower Ca values yield more distinct liquid slugs. CO2 exhibited effective extraction capabilities for light crude oil components, enriching residual heavy components that impeded subsequent extraction. When contact time was tripled under experimental conditions, this ultimately led to a 25.6% reduction in recovery rate. This investigation offers valuable insights into microscopic transport mechanisms within shale oil systems and provides practical guidance for optimizing shale reservoir development strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: