URTeC: 2902660

Integrated Effects of Pore Volume Compaction and Connectivity Loss

on Intrinsic Permeability of Shale Samples
Davud Davudov*, Rouzbeh Ghanbarnezhad Moghanloo; The University of Oklahoma
Copyright 2018, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2018-2902660

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein . All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC
is prohibited.

Abstract
This study presents a novel approach to describe permeability reduction of shale samples through combination of
three main phenomena: (1) micro crack closure (2) pore shrinkage and (3) connectivity loss due to the bond
breakage between interconnected pores. Shale resources have distinct characteristics than conventional reservoir
rocks, such as micro-scale pores, ultra-low permeability, and complex pore network system. In addition,
experimental results indicate that permeability reduction owing to the increased effective pressure can be as large as
two orders of magnitude. However, it is customary to explain this severe permeability reduction as a consequence of
micro-fracture closure only and often ignore the impact of pore compressibility and connectivity loss.

We present a novel approach to describe permeability reduction with the increased effective stress that takes into
account all important mechanisms. The developed mathematical expression is a function of pore radius, porosity,
and average coordination number. Effects of pore shrinkage and connectivity loss are evaluated through the
predicted permeability values as a function of the effective stress. Using Walsh model, the crack-dominated
permeability region is identified and isolated in experimental data obtained from sandstone and shale samples. Next,
the interplay between connectivity reduction and effective stress are studied for the remainder part of the data.

Our results indicate that when combined effects of both pore shrinkage and connectivity loss are considered,
connectivity loss (as expected) is insignificant in sandstone samples and thus observed permeability reduction can be
explained through pore compressibility. However, for the shale samples, impact of bond breakage and connectivity
loss on the permeability reduction is dominant. The results suggest that average coordination number can
significantly decrease to 44 % of the original value.

The result of this study suggests that in shale formations, permeability reduction should be corrected to account for
micro-crack closure at early stage and for both pore compressibility and connectivity loss at the later stage. The
outcome may change the industry’s predictions of the reservoir performance in unconventional shale plays.
Improved understanding of connectivity loss leads to better production prediction and much accurate economic
predictions.

Introduction
As shale plays maintains its role as one of the main energy resources in North America, prediction of formation
deliverability during the production life becomes a decision-making factor for future investments. The complexity of
shale gas reservoirs can, in part, be attributed to the geological and petrophysical heterogeneity as well as to the very
low pore and hydraulic connectivity of the reservoir rocks. Hu et al (2012) have reported very low connectivity for
Barnett samples based on three experimental approaches (imbibition, tracer concentration profiles, and imaging)
they have conducted. Davudov and Moghanloo (2016; 2017) also studied connectivity in shale formations based on
mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) data, which they have reported that the percentage of accessible pores
in Barnett and Haynesville shale fields is around 30%.
URTeC 2902660 2

Another challenge for low-permeability shale formations is that the permeability and porosity reduction under
effective stress is also complex process. Various experimental studies have shown a nonlinear reduction in
permeability with increasing effective stress, where this reduction might be as much as two orders of magnitude.
(Tinni et al. 2012, Metwally and Sondergeld 2011, Dong et al. 2010). This severe reduction in permeability is often
explained with micro-crack closure and pore volume shrinkage, whereas pore/hydraulic connectivity loss is often
neglected.

To describe permeability reduction under effective stress several empirical models have been proposed. Shi and
Wang (1986) suggested that the relationship between effective stress and rock permeability should follow a power
law, where David et al. (1994) and Evans et al. (1997) suggested an exponential relationship to model permeability
change as a function of effective stress. Later, Kwon et al. (2001) suggested modified version of Gangi (1978)
permeability model (Cubic law) to model crack permeability reduction of fractured rocks with increasing effective
stress. Alternatively, Walsh (1981) suggested to express fractured permeability reduction as:
3
kf   2h   Pe  
 1    ln    ,
k fo   ao   Po   (1)

where ℎ is the root mean square of the surface roughness and 𝑎𝑜 is the half width of fracture aperture, 𝑃𝑒 is effective
1⁄3
stress and 𝑃𝑜 is the reference effective stress. Eq. 1 predicts that the plot of (𝐾𝑓 ⁄𝐾𝑓𝑜 ) as function of 𝑙𝑛(𝑃𝑒 ⁄𝑃𝑜 ) will
be straight line with the slope of √2 ℎ⁄𝑎𝑜 if the permeability reduction is due to crack closure. However, if the
permeability is not controlled by fractures, then a deviation from the straight line will be observed (Tinni et al.
2012).

Although many empirical models have been proposed to fit permeability reduction from experimental data, in most
cases these models do not account for connectivity loss. To be able to evaluate connectivity loss in porous media it
is essential to have permeability model explicitly function of hydraulic/pore connectivity. In this study, we analyze
permeability models explicitly function of pore connectivity and investigate impact of connectivity loss on
permeability reduction under effective stress in shale formations based on these models. Main purpose of this study
is to show that pore connectivity might be one of most dominant factors is shale formations and connectivity
reduction under effective stress is significant high when compared to conventional reservoirs. The paper is
organized as follow: (1) permeability models accounting for pore connectivity are discussed; (2) permeability
reduction under effective stress is formulized; (3) permeability under effective stress is evaluated for several
sandstone and shale core samples

Permeability Models
One of the fundamental permeability models is Kozeny-Carmen (KC) equation that considers porous medium as a
bundle of cylindrical tubes. The rock permeability is then related to porosity (φ), tortuosity (τ), and hydraulic pore
radius (𝑟ℎ ) as follows:
rh2 
k (2)
c
When effective hydraulic pore radius, 𝑟ℎ is substituted by the surface area per unit of grain volume(𝑆𝑔𝑣 ), Eq. 2 can
be rewritten as:
2
1 1   
k   (3)
c  S gv  1   
However, KC equation cannot properly address the gate or valve effect (pore/hydraulic interconnectivity) of porous
media (Civan 2001; Bernabe et al. 2010). In order to capture and include connectivity effect in their permeability
models several equations have been proposed. Civan (2001) modified KC permeability model and proposed the
following equation for porous media:
2
  
k     , (4)
 1 
URTeC 2902660 3

where β is constant usually considered as 1 and Γ is interconnectivity parameter which represents the valve effect of
the pore throats controlling the pore connectivity. The interconnectivity parameter is strong function of average
coordination number and it diminishes as the pore throats are blocked due to mechanisms like fine migration,
deposition of precipitates, and collapse of pore throats under mechanical stresses (Civan, 2001).

Similarly, Pape et al. (2000) proposed permeability model based on fractal theory as follow:
2/( D 1)
rg2   2 
k   , (5)
8 T  3T (1   ) 
where 𝑟𝑔 is grain radius, 𝐷 is fractal dimension and 𝑇 is the tortuosity parameter. Eq. 5 can be rewritten as follow:
2/( D 1)
rg2    
k (D 1)/( D 1)   , (6)
c T  (1   ) 
where 𝑐 is 𝑟𝑔2 (2⁄3)2⁄(𝐷−1) ⁄8. Comparing Eq. 4 with Eq. 6 it is clear that, (1⁄𝑇 )(𝐷+1)/(𝐷−1) corresponds to
interconnectivity term Γ.

Alternatively, based on pore network modeling Bernabe et al. (2010) suggested that normalized permeability in
porous media obeys power law function as 𝑘⁄𝑘𝑜  (𝑧 − 1.5)𝜂 and thus giving the definition of 𝑘𝑜 , permeability can
be expressed as:

2
r 
kw rH2  H  ( z  1.5) , (7)
8  l 
where 𝑟𝐻 is hydraulic pore radius, 𝑙 is pore length, 𝑧 is average coordination number and coefficient 𝑤 and exponent
𝜂 are constants as a function of pore size distribution.

Critical Path Analysis Based Models: Although models developed based on the premise of bundle of capillary tubes
are widely-used, they are not sophisticated enough to represent complicated structure of porous media. Thus,
percolation-based models were developed to address issues associated with bundle of capillary tube hypothesis.
Sahimi (1994), Hunt (2001), and Hunt and Gee (2002) reported that pore size in naturally occurring porous media
complies with fractal geometry/scaling and that implementing fractal geometry yields successful prediction of
permeability. Two different approaches of percolation theory are often used: 1) critical path analysis (CPA) and 2)
percolation scaling analysis (PSA). Katz and Thompson (1986, 1987) model was one of the earliest attempts to
implement CPA. They have hypothesized that fluid flow and electrical conductance through porous media are
percolation dominated processes and thus permeability can be related to electrical conductivity and critical pore
diameter as:

rc2  b ,
k
c w (8)
where 𝜎𝑏 is bulk electrical conductivity, 𝜎𝑤 is saturating fluid electrical conductivity, 𝑟𝑐 is critical pore radius, and c
is a constant which is function of pore shape. Here, 𝑟𝑐 is the critical pore radius defined as the largest value of radius
for which an interconnected path may exist across the system length from one side toward the other side; 𝑟𝑐 can be
identified as the inflection point of the mercury intrusion curve.

Later, Daigle (2016) combined fractal theory based critical pore throat expression with electrical conductivity model
originally developed by Ghanbarian et al (2014) and expressed permeability as:

r 2   1  pc  
m

k c   (9)
c  1   pc 

where 𝑝𝑐 is critical percolation threshold and m is universal exponent usually equal to 2. Davudov and Moghanloo
(2018) modified Daigle’s model for shale formations as:
URTeC 2902660 4

rc2 m
k   1  pc 
m
(10)
c
Based on pore solid fractal theory, an expression for the critical pore radius, 𝑟𝑐 can be expressed as a function of
maximum pore size, 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 , percolation threshold, 𝑝𝑐 and fractal dimension, 𝐷 (Hunt 2001; Daigle 2016; and
Ghanbarian et al. 2017):

1
rc
 1  pc  3 D (11)
rmax
Combining with Eq. 11, permeability model from Eq. 10 can be expressed as (Davudov and Moghanloo 2018):

2 2
rmax
 m 1  pc  3 D
m
k (12)
c
Hori and Yonezawa, (1977) expressed critical percolation threshold, 𝑝𝑐 as a function of average coordination
number as 𝑝𝑐 = 1 − exp(−2/𝑧). Alternatively, critical percolation threshold, 𝑝𝑐 can be expressed as 𝑝𝑐 = 1.5/𝑧
(Vyssotsky et al 1961; Hunt et al 2014), which in that case Eq. 12 can be expressed as:

2
m
r2  z  1.5  3 D
k  max  m   (13)
c  z 
2
2
From Eq. 13, it is clear that 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜙 2 ⁄8 is maximum achievable permeability and ((𝑧 − 1.5)⁄𝑧)3−𝐷+𝑚 represents
pore/hydraulic interconnectivity. As coordination number, z gets close to 1.5, permeability will approximate to zero,
representing closing valve effect.

More recently, Ghanbarian et al. (2017) modified electrical conductance originally defined by KT and formulated
permeability as:

rc2    rc  
3 D

k 1     (14)
c 3   3rmax  
 
Similarly combined with Eq. 10, permeability from Ghanbarian’s model can be rewritten as:

2
r 2   z  1.5  3 D   1 3 D  z  1.5  
k  max   1      (15)
c 3 z    3   z  

Permeability as a Function of Effective Stress

In this section, effect of both pore shrinkage and connectivity loss are evaluated based on discussed permeability
models (Eq. 4, 6, 7, 13, 15). Assuming, 1 − 𝜙 ≈ 1 in clay-bearing rocks (Revil 2002), the effects of both pore
shrinkage and bond breakage on permeability reduction can be evaluated from Civan’s model (Eq. 4) as follow

Pore Volume Shrinkage

Permeability Re duction Rate Connectivity Loss
2  1
k   
   * (16)
ko  o  o
URTeC 2902660 5

where β is usually considered as 1. In case connectivity loss is negligible, then last term in Eq. 16 will be equal to 1
and permeability reduction can be estimated as a function of pore volume shrinkage only:

2  1
k  
  (17)
ko  o 

Similarly, based on pape et al. (200) model, permeability reduction can be formulated as follow:
 D 1 /( D 1)  D 1 /( D 1)
k    To 
    (18)
ko  o  T 
Alternatively, connectivity loss from Bernabe et al. (2010) model (Eq. 7) can be expressed as:

 ( z  1.5)

o ( zo  1.5) (19)

2 ⁄ 2
Assuming pores to be cylindrical (𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑟max _𝑜 = 𝜙⁄𝜙𝑜 ), permeability reduction from Eq. 13 can be expressed as:
2
m
 z  1.5  3 D
k  
m 1
 
   z 
ko  o  2
m (20)
 zo  1.5  3 D
 
 zo 
where first and second terms on the right side of Eq. 20 express permeability reduction due to pore volume
shrinkage/pore compressibility and connectivity loss, respectively. Comparing with Civan’s model (Eq. 4),
interconnectivity reduction (𝛤 ⁄𝛤𝑜 ) can be expressed as:
2
m
 z  1.5  3 D K
  
  
z Ko
 m 1
o 2
m
  (21)
 zo  1.5  3 D
   
 zo   o 

Following the same methodology, interconnectivity reduction from Ghanbarian et al. (2017) model (Eq. 15) can be
expressed as:
2
 z  1.5  3 D   1 3 D  z  1.5   K
  1     
  z    3   z   Ko
 
o 2
 1  
2 (22)
 zo  1.5  
3 D
 zo  1.5  3 D
  1       
 zo    3   zo    o 

It should be noted that, exponent β from Eq. 4 is usually considered as 1, which 2𝛽 + 1 equals to 3 consistent with
KC permeability model. Similarly, 𝑚 from Eq. 13 typically is considered as a universal exponent equal to 2 (Clerc
et al. 2000; Stauffer and Aharony, 1992; Daigle 2016), which again 𝑚 + 1 = 3. However, from Ghanbarian et al.
(2017) model (Eq. 15) exponent of porosity ratio is 2, which will result in more pronounced effect of connectivity
loss.
URTeC 2902660 6

Results
To evaluate impact of pore shrinkage and connectivity loss on the permeability reduction, we analyze experimental
data available in the literature for 1 sandstone sample (Dong et al. 2010), and 3 shale samples (Reyes and Osisanya
2000).

Sandstone sample: To measure porosity and intrinsic permeability under effective stress, Dong et al. (2010)
conducted experiments by gradually increasing the confining pressure from 435 to 725 psi, then to 1450, and finally
(in 1450 psi increments) up to 17,000 psi, while keeping pore pressure constant between 29 and 290 psi. Figure 1
illustrates experimentally measured permeability and porosity reduction rate for sandstone sample. Additionally, to
compare with experimental data permeability reduction due to only pore volume shrinkage (Eq. 17) is calculated.
As shown in the graph, the measured and calculated values are consistent indicating that pore shrinkage is the main
mechanism of permeability reduction for sandstone sample.

Permeability Reduction (Exp.) Porosity Reduction (Exp.) Permeability Reduction (Eq. 17)

1.0

0.8 Permeability reduction due

𝜙/𝜙o or k/ko

to pore shrinkage

0.6

0.4
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 1: Permeability and porosity reduction for sandstone sample

For further evaluation of connectivity loss, interconnectivity reduction is calculated based on Civan (2001), Pape et
al. (2000) and Ghanbarian et al. (2017) models (Eq. 4, 6 and 22). For the calculations fractal dimension is
considered as 2.5. Results indicate that, connectivity reduction is around 20% based on Civan (2001) model, 27%
based on Pape et al. (2000) model and 30% based on Ghanbarian et al. (2017) model when effective stress reaches
to 17,000 psi as shown in Figure 2a.

Moreover, reduction of the coordination number is calculated based on percolation theory-based models discussed in
the previous section (Eq. 19, 21 and 22). In all calculations, fractal dimension is assumed to be 2.5, exponent for
Eq. 19 is considered is 2, and initial average coordination number is 8. Results show that when pressure reaches to
17,000 psi, there is around 10% reduction in average coordination number based on Eq. 19 and 22, where this value
is around 20% based on Eq. 21. It can be concluded that for the sandstone sample studied, effect of connectivity
loss on permeability reduction is insignificant and pore volume shrinkage is the dominant mechanism.
URTeC 2902660 7

Civan Model - Eq. 4 Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21 Pape et al. Model - Eq. 6

1.0

0.9
Γ/Γo

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Effective Stress, psi

Bernabe et al. Model - Eq. 18 Davud and Moghanloo Model - Eq. 20

Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21
1.0

0.9
z/zo

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 2: a) Interconnectivity reduction b) Average coordination number reduction for sandstone sample

Shale samples: As shown in Figure 3 slightly change in porosity results in severe permeability reduction in all
three shale samples studied here. For the sample #1, when pressure reaches to 7253 psi, the porosity reduction is
around 32% where permeability reduction is close to 99.8%. Similarly, for sample #2, although porosity reduction is
only 6% at 6405 effective stress, permeability reduction is close to 84%. Finally, for sample #3, porosity reduction is
6%, where permeability reduction is around 99.6%. Clearly, this drastic permeability reduction cannot be explained
solely due to pore volume shrinkage (Eq. 17), as can be seen from Figure 3, rather this is usually explained with
micro fracture closure. However, connectivity loss generally is often ignored in these calculations.
URTeC 2902660 8

Permeability Reduction (Exp.) Porosity Reduction (Exp.) Permeability Reduction (Eq. 17)

1.0

0.8
𝜙/𝜙o or k/ko

0.6 Permeability reduction due

to pore shrinkage
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Effective Stress, psi

Permeability Reduction (Exp.) Porosity Reduction (Exp.) Permeability Reduction (Eq. 17)

1.0

0.8
𝜙/𝜙o or k/ko

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Effective Stress, psi
URTeC 2902660 9

Permeability Reduction (Exp.) Porosity Reduction (Exp.) Permeability Reduction (Eq. 17)

1.0

0.8
𝜙/𝜙o or k/ko

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
600 1100 1600 2100 2600 3100 3600
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 3: Permeability and porosity reduction for shale samples

To identify and differentiate fracture closure region, Walsh model (Eq. 1) is used as shown in Figure 4 for shale
sample #1. According to Walsh model, if permeability reduction is dominated by fracture closure, then the plot of
(𝐾 ⁄𝐾𝑜 )1⁄3 as function of 𝑙𝑛(𝑃𝑒 ⁄𝑃𝑜 ) will be straight line. A deviation from the straight line at later stage is attributed
to pore volume shrinkage and connectivity loss (Tinni et al. 2012). Thus, for three samples first fracture dominated
region is identified and then pore volume shrinkage and connectivity loss effect are evaluated for the rest of data.

0.8
Micro fracture closure

0.6
(k/ko)1/3

0.4

0.2

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
ln(Pe/Po)

Figure 4: Plot of (𝐾 ⁄𝐾𝑜 )1⁄3 as a function of 𝑙𝑛(𝑃𝑒 ⁄𝑃𝑜 ) for shale sample #1
URTeC 2902660 10

Results indicate that, interconnectivity reduction for shale sample #1 is around 98%, when effective pressure is 7253
psi. This corresponds to more than 30-40% average coordination number reduction as shown in Figure 5. For
sample #2, connectivity reduction is around 80% which corresponds to 25-32 % reduction of coordination number
(Figure 6). Finally, for sample #3, connectivity loss is around 90% where the average coordination number
reduction is between 35-44% (Figure 7). When impact of pore shrinkage and connectivity loss are compared for
shale samples, it is clear that the effect of pore bond breakage (coordination number reduction) is dominant.

Civan Model - Eq. 4 Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21 Pape et al. Model - Eq. 6

1.0

0.8

0.6
Γ/Γo

0.4

0.2

0.0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Effective Stress, psi

Bernabe et al. Model - Eq. 18 Davud and Moghanloo Model - Eq. 20

Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21
1.0

0.9

0.8
z/zo

0.7

0.6

0.5
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 5: a) Interconnectivity reduction b) Average coordination number reduction for shale sample #1
URTeC 2902660 11

Civan Model - Eq. 4 Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21 Pape et al. Model - Eq. 6

1.0

0.8

0.6
Γ/Γo

0.4

0.2

0.0
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Effective Stress, psi

Bernabe et al. Model - Eq. 18 Davud and Moghanloo Model - Eq. 20

Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21
1.0

0.9

0.8
z/zo

0.7

0.6

0.5
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 6: a) Interconnectivity reduction b) Average coordination number reduction for shale sample #2
URTeC 2902660 12

Civan Model - Eq. 4 Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21 Pape et al. Model - Eq. 6

1.0

0.8

0.6
Γ/Γo

0.4

0.2

0.0
2000 2400 2800 3200 3600
Effective Stress, psi

Bernabe et al. Model - Eq. 18 Davud and Moghanloo Model - Eq. 20

Ghanbarian et al. Model - Eq. 21
1.0

0.9

0.8
z/zo

0.7

0.6

0.5
2000 2400 2800 3200 3600
Effective Stress, psi

Figure 7: a) Interconnectivity reduction b) Average coordination number reduction for shale sample #3
URTeC 2902660 13

Conclusions
In this study, we use percolation-based permeability models to evaluate severe permeability reduction under
effective stress in shale formations. We discussed permeability models based on percolation theories as a function of
average coordination number. The impact of pore volume shrinkage and connectivity loss on permeability reduction
was analyzed. Major outcomes of this study are as follows:
 Permeability reduction in shale plays can be explained with a combination of micro-crack closure at early
stage and pore shrinkage and connectivity loss at later stage. As observed in shale samples studied, if
significant permeability reduction is accompanied by limited porosity change, then connectivity loss can be
considered as the main cause.
 While connectivity loss can be insignificant in the sandstone samples we discussed here, it is identified as
the dominant mechanism controlling permeability reduction in shale formations.
 For the shale samples studied here, average coordination number has significantly reduced to 44% of the
original value.

Acknowledgement
The authors greatly acknowledge the support provided through American Chemical Society (PRF#56929-DN19).

References
Bernabé, Y., Li, M., & Maineult, A. (2010). Permeability and pore connectivity: a new model based on network
simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 115(B10).

Chalmers, G. R., Bustin, R. M., & Power, I. M. (2012). Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry,
pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image
analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units. AAPG bulletin, 96(6),
1099-1119.

Civan, F. (2001). Scale effect on porosity and permeability: Kinetics, model, and correlation. AIChE journal, 47(2),
271-287.

Civan, F. (2011). Porous media transport phenomena. John Wiley & Sons.

Clerc, J.P., Podolskiy, V. A., Sarychev, A.K., 2000. Precise determination of the conductivity exponent of 3D
percolation using exact numerical renormalization. Eur. Phys. J. B 15, 507–516.

Daigle, H. (2016). Application of critical path analysis for permeability prediction in natural porous media.
Advances in Water Resources, 96, 43-54.

Davudov, D., & Moghanloo, R. G. (2016, September 26). Upscaling of Pore Connectivity Results from Lab-Scale to
Well-Scale for Barnett and Haynesville Shale Plays. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/181433-MS.

Davudov, D., & Moghanloo, R. G. (2017). Scale-Dependent Pore and Hydraulic Connectivity of Shale
Matrix. Energy & Fuels, 32(1), 99-106.

Davudov, D., & Moghanloo, R. G. (2018). Impact of pore compressibility and connectivity loss on shale
permeability. International Journal of Coal Geology.

David, C., Wong, T. F., Zhu, W., & Zhang, J. (1994). Laboratory measurement of compaction-induced permeability
change in porous rocks: Implications for the generation and maintenance of pore pressure excess in the crust. Pure
and Applied Geophysics, 143(1-3), 425-456.

Dong, J. J., Hsu, J. Y., Wu, W. J., Shimamoto, T., Hung, J. H., Yeh, E. C., ... & Sone, H. (2010). Stress-dependence
of the permeability and porosity of sandstone and shale from TCDP Hole-A. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(7), 1141-1157.
URTeC 2902660 14

Doyen, P. M. (1988). Permeability, conductivity, and pore geometry of sandstone. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, 93(B7), 7729-7740.

Evans, J. P., Forster, C. B., & Goddard, J. V. (1997). Permeability of fault-related rocks, and implications for
hydraulic structure of fault zones. Journal of structural Geology, 19(11), 1393-1404.

Gangi, A. F. (1978, October). Variation of whole and fractured porous rock permeability with confining pressure.
In International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.
249-257). Pergamon.

Ghanbarian, B., Hunt, A. G., Ewing, R. P., & Skinner, T. E. (2014). Universal scaling of the formation factor in
porous media derived by combining percolation and effective medium theories. Geophysical Research Letters,
41(11), 3884-3890.

Ghanbarian, B., Hunt, A.G., Skaggs, T.H. and Jarvis, N., 2017. Upscaling soil saturated hydraulic conductivity from
pore throat characteristics. Advances in Water Resources, 104, pp.105-113.

Hori, M., & Yonezawa, F. (1977). Theoretical approaches to inhomogeneous transport in disordered media. Journal
of Physics C: Solid State Physics, 10(2), 229.

Hunt, A., Ewing, R., & Ghanbarian, B. (2014). Percolation theory for flow in porous media (Vol. 880). Springer

Hu, Q., Ewing, R. P., & Dultz, S. (2012). Low pore connectivity in natural rock. Journal of contaminant hydrology,
133, 76-83.

Hunt, A. G. (2001). Applications of percolation theory to porous media with distributed local conductances.
Advances in Water Resources, 24(3), 279-307.

Hunt, A.G., and Gee, G.W., 2002. Application of critical path analysis to fractal porous media: comparison with
examples from the Hanford site. Advances in Water Resources 25, 129–146.

Katz, A.J. and Thompson, A.H.: "Quantitative Prediction of Permeability in Porous Rock," Physical Review B, Vol.
34, No. 11, (December, 1986) 8179-8181

Katz, A.J. and Thompson, A.H.: "Prediction of Rock Electrical Conductivity from Mercury Injection
Measurements," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 92, No. B1 (Jan. 1987), 599-607.

King Jr, H. E., Eberle, A. P., Walters, C. C., Kliewer, C. E., Ertas, D., & Huynh, C. (2015). Pore architecture and
connectivity in gas shale. Energy & Fuels, 29(3), 1375-1390.

Kwon, O., Kronenberg, A. K., Gangi, A. F., & Johnson, B. (2001). Permeability of Wilcox shale and its effective
pressure law. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 106(B9), 19339-19353.

Kwon, O., Herbert, B. E., & Kronenberg, A. K. (2004). Permeability of illite‐ bearing shale: 2. Influence of fluid
chemistry on flow and functionally connected pores. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B10).

Metwally, Y.M., and Sondergeld, C.H., 2011. Measuring Low Permeability of Gas-sands and Shales using a
Pressure Transmission Technique. Int. J. of Rock Mech. and Mining Sci. pp 1135-44

Pape, H., Clauser, C., Iffland, J., 2000. Variation of permeability with porosity in sandstone diagenesis interpreted
with a fractal pore space model. Pure Appl. Geophys. 157, 603–619.

Reyes, L., & Osisanya, S. O. (2000, January). Empirical correlation of effective stress dependent shale rock
properties. In Canadian International Petroleum Conference. Petroleum Society of Canada.
URTeC 2902660 15

Revil, A., 2002. The hydroelectric problem of porous rocks: thermodynamic approach and introduction of a
percolation threshold. Geophys. J. Int. 151, 944–949.

Sahimi, M. (1994), Applications of Percolation Theory, Taylor and Francis, London.

Sahimi M. Flow and transport in porous media and fractured rock: from classical methods to modern approaches.
Federal Republic of Germany: VCH Weinheim; 1995.

Shi T, Wang CY. Pore pressure generation in sedimentary basins: overloading versus aquathermal. J Geophys Res
1986; 91(B2):2153–62.

Stauffer, D., Aharony, A., 1992. Introduction to Percolation Theory, second ed. Taylor and Francis, London.

Tinni, A., Fathi, E., Agarwal, R., Sondergeld, C. H., Akkutlu, I. Y., & Rai, C. S. (2012, January 1). Shale
Permeability Measurements on Plugs and Crushed Samples. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/162235-
MS

Vyssotsky, V. A., Gordon, S. B., Frisch, H. L., & Hammersley, J. M. (1961). Critical percolation probabilities (bond
problem). Physical review, 123(5), 1566.

Walsh, J. B. (1981, October). Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on fracture permeability.
In International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.
429-435). Pergamon.

Walsh J.B., Brace W.F. (1984) The effect of pressure on porosity and the transport properties of rock, J. Geophys.
Res. - Sol. Earth 89, 9425-9431

Yang, Y., Yao, J., Wang, C., Gao, Y., Zhang, Q., An, S., Song, W., 2015. New pore space characterization method
of shale matrix formation by considering organic and inorganic pores. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27 (P2), 496-503