Figure 1.
Migration mechanism of contaminants in a heterogeneous subsurface.
Figure 1.
Migration mechanism of contaminants in a heterogeneous subsurface.
Figure 2.
(a) Geometric Model 1. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 1.
Figure 2.
(a) Geometric Model 1. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 1.
Figure 3.
The contaminants velocity vector and the streamlines in Model 1. (a) Local distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector, where proportional processing is employed. (b) Global distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector, where normalized processing is employed. (c) Local distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector and the streamlines.
Figure 3.
The contaminants velocity vector and the streamlines in Model 1. (a) Local distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector, where proportional processing is employed. (b) Global distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector, where normalized processing is employed. (c) Local distribution of the contaminants’ velocity vector and the streamlines.
Figure 4.
Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary, at different times.
Figure 4.
Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary, at different times.
Figure 5.
(a) Fracture-matrix system. (b) Comparison of the analytical solution and the numerical solution.
Figure 5.
(a) Fracture-matrix system. (b) Comparison of the analytical solution and the numerical solution.
Figure 6.
(a) Geometric Model 2. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 2.
Figure 6.
(a) Geometric Model 2. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 2.
Figure 7.
(a) Contaminants velocity vector and the streamlines. (b) Contaminants’ concentration at the upper boundary, in Model 2.
Figure 7.
(a) Contaminants velocity vector and the streamlines. (b) Contaminants’ concentration at the upper boundary, in Model 2.
Figure 8.
(a) Geometric Model 3. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 3.
Figure 8.
(a) Geometric Model 3. (b) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 3.
Figure 9.
(a) Contaminants velocity vector. (b) Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary in Model 3.
Figure 9.
(a) Contaminants velocity vector. (b) Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary in Model 3.
Figure 10.
The increment of porosity and permeability caused by the alkali erosion of rock. (a) Porosity increment; (b) permeability increment.
Figure 10.
The increment of porosity and permeability caused by the alkali erosion of rock. (a) Porosity increment; (b) permeability increment.
Figure 11.
(a) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 4. (b) Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary in Model 4.
Figure 11.
(a) Concentration distribution of contaminants in Model 4. (b) Contaminants concentration at the upper boundary in Model 4.
Figure 12.
Comparison of the contaminants concentration, in the four cases. (a) Contaminants concentration at point (15−5, 30); (b) contaminants concentration at upper boundary.
Figure 12.
Comparison of the contaminants concentration, in the four cases. (a) Contaminants concentration at point (15−5, 30); (b) contaminants concentration at upper boundary.
Figure 13.
The schematic diagram of geometric model and mesh generation. (a) Geometric model. (b) Mesh generation. Different density grids were adopted in different regions to reduce calculation cost. The NFs, fault and hydraulic fractures regions were described by the refined grids in COMSOL 5.2, and other regions of this model were divided using the standardized grids.
Figure 13.
The schematic diagram of geometric model and mesh generation. (a) Geometric model. (b) Mesh generation. Different density grids were adopted in different regions to reduce calculation cost. The NFs, fault and hydraulic fractures regions were described by the refined grids in COMSOL 5.2, and other regions of this model were divided using the standardized grids.
Figure 14.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for the three kinds of contaminants. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault. (b) Contaminants accumulation in aquifers.
Figure 14.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for the three kinds of contaminants. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault. (b) Contaminants accumulation in aquifers.
Figure 15.
The concentration distribution of the contaminants at different times. (a) t = 100 years; (b) t = 250 years; (c) t = 500 years; and (d) t = 1000 years.
Figure 15.
The concentration distribution of the contaminants at different times. (a) t = 100 years; (b) t = 250 years; (c) t = 500 years; and (d) t = 1000 years.
Figure 16.
(a) Local distribution of the contaminants velocity vector; (b) variation in velocity at line EF.
Figure 16.
(a) Local distribution of the contaminants velocity vector; (b) variation in velocity at line EF.
Figure 17.
Variation in the Cd flux and the percentage of the Cd-content, with time. (a) Cd flux; (b) Cd location.
Figure 17.
Variation in the Cd flux and the percentage of the Cd-content, with time. (a) Cd flux; (b) Cd location.
Figure 18.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for different cases. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in aquifers.
Figure 18.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for different cases. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in aquifers.
Figure 19.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for different numbers of NFs. (a) Contaminants’ concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in the aquifers.
Figure 19.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for different numbers of NFs. (a) Contaminants’ concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in the aquifers.
Figure 20.
The increment of porosity and permeability for the different pH values. (a) Porosity increment; (b) permeability increment.
Figure 20.
The increment of porosity and permeability for the different pH values. (a) Porosity increment; (b) permeability increment.
Figure 21.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for the different pH values. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in the aquifers.
Figure 21.
Variation in the concentration and accumulation for the different pH values. (a) Contaminants concentration at the top of the fault; (b) contaminants accumulation in the aquifers.
Table 1.
Characteristics of contaminants from shale gas extraction.
Table 1.
Characteristics of contaminants from shale gas extraction.
Contaminants | Contaminated | pH | Composition | Permeable Pathways | References |
---|
Formation Fluid | Yes | 4.0–9.0 | Oil, gas and high-concentration-salt water | Well, fractures or faults | Yang et al. [11] |
Li et al. [12] |
Flow-back Fluid | Yes | 7.0–8.0 | Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and stratigraphic composition | Well, fractures or faults | Wang et al. [13] |
Huang et al. [14] |
High-pH Drilling Fluid | Yes | 11.0–12.0 | Diesel or mineral oil with a suspended polymer, synthetic polymer or modified clay | Drilling fluid loss may occur during drilling, and then filtrate may invades into porous formation | Ghavami et al. [15] |
Kang et al. [16] |
HF Fluid | Yes | 6.5–7.0 | Water, proppant and chemical additives | Well, fractures or faults | Birdsell et al. [17] |
Table 2.
Summary of important aspects of previous modeling studies.
Table 2.
Summary of important aspects of previous modeling studies.
Authors | Fluid | Driving Force | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|
Myers [18] | HF | imposed at boundaries | Taking the lead in studying the migration of HF fluid and providing ideas for later scholars. | Without consideration of the buoyancy caused by difference in density flow. |
Gassiat et al. [19] | HF | Reservoir Overpressure | A wide range of parameter studies is presented. | Without consideration of well production. |
Kissinger et al. [20] | (1), (2): HF fluid and brine; (3): methane | from injection from artesian aquifers (3): Flux from reservoir | Buoyancy is accounted for in all three scenarios and a two-phase model is presented in scenario (3). | (1) and (2) do not consider the effects of imbibition and well production; (3) cannot be used for a quantitative risk analysis. |
Wei YQ et al. [21] | HF | Buoyancy | The migration of HF caused by density difference is studied in detail. | Without consideration of temperature, alkali erosion and different parameters sensitivity. |
Reagan et al. [22] | Gas | Buoyancy and well | The effects of multiphase flow, buoyancy and well production on the migration of HF fluid are considered. | Without consideration of NFs and alkali erosion. |
Birdsell et al. [17] | HF | imposed at boundaries and well | The combination of 5 stages mechanisms is considered and a wide range of parameter studies is presented. | Geological conditions, NFs and alkali erosion are not considered. |
Pfunt et al. [23] | HF | from injection | The migration of HF caused by density difference is studied in detail. | Without consideration of temperature, alkali erosion and different parameters sensitivity. |
Table 3.
Computational parameters used in model verification.
Table 3.
Computational parameters used in model verification.
Parameters | Description | Value |
---|
(kg/m3) | Fracturing fluid density | 1100 |
(m2) | The matrix permeability in Model 1 | 5.0 × 10−16 |
(m2) | The upper matrix permeability in Model 2, 3, 4 | 6.0 × 10−16 |
(m2) | The lower matrix permeability in Model 2, 3, 4 | 4.0 × 10−16 |
| The matrix porosity in Model 1 | 0.1 |
| The upper matrix porosity in Model 2, 3, 4 | 0.15 |
| The lower matrix porosity in Model 2, 3, 4 | 0.05 |
(m) | Fault width | 0.16 |
(m) | Fault height | 30 |
| Fault inclination angle | 60 |
| Fault porosity | 0.2 |
Table 4.
Summary of three heavy metal contaminants from the Cambrian Niutitang Formation flow-back liquid.
Table 4.
Summary of three heavy metal contaminants from the Cambrian Niutitang Formation flow-back liquid.
Heavy Metal Contaminants | Cd | Pb | Co | References |
---|
Content in flow-back fluid (μg/L) | 689.09 | 10.28 | 200.15 | Yang et al. [8] |
Water quality standard (μg/L) | ≤1 | ≤10 | | Zhou et al. [35] |
Risk assessment | Toxic, causing liver or kidney damage easily | Toxic and carcinogenic | Toxic, causing “Carbide disease” | Sui et al. [36] |
Table 5.
Properties of each stratigraphic unit used in model application.
Table 5.
Properties of each stratigraphic unit used in model application.
Zone | Stratigraphic Units | Thickness [m] | Porosity | [m]2 | References |
---|
1 | Cretaceous | 75 | 0.118 | 2.3 × 10−15 | |
2 | Jurassic | 400 | 0.05 | 1.0 × 10−15 | Liu et al. [37] |
3 | Upper Triassic | 220 | 0.0409 | 1.1 × 10−16 | Tian et al. [38] |
4 | Middle Triassic | 250 | 0.0212 | 1.67 × 10−15 | Zeng et al. [39] |
5 | Lower Triassic | 650 | 0.025 | 3.5 × 10−16 | Zhang et al. [40] |
6 | Upper Permian | 80 | 0.03 | 3.0 × 10−16 | Fang et al. [41] |
7 | Lower Permian | 170 | 0.0084 | 8.0 × 10−17 | Fang et al. [41] |
8 | Carboniferous | 30 | 0.0203 | 1.0 × 10−15 | Yang et al. [42] |
9 | Silurian | 230 | 0.0461 | 1.2 × 10−16 | Fang et al. [41] |
10 | Ordovician | 200 | 0.0304 | 2.5 × 10−16 | Guo et al. [43] |
11 | Upper Cambrian | 200 | 0.026 | 2.0 × 10−16 | Shi et al. [44] |
12 | Middle Cambrian | 160 | 0.0138 | 1.83 × 10−16 | Huang et al. [45] |
13 | Weiyuan gas field | 39 | 0.01 | 4.6 × 10−19 | Huang et al. [45] |
14 | Lower Cambrian | 96 | 0.021 | 8.0 × 10−17 | Song et al. [46] |
Table 6.
Computational parameters used in model application.
Table 6.
Computational parameters used in model application.
Parameters | Description | Value |
---|
(m) | Fault width | 10 |
(m) | Fault height | 2900 |
| Fault inclination angle | 60 |
| Fault porosity | 0.2 |
(kg/m3) | HF fluid density | 1100 |
| The well length | 1500 |
(m) | The NFs aperture | 1.0 × 10−4 |
(m2/s) | Molecular diffusion coefficient | 1.0 × 10−9 |
(m) | Longitudinal dispersivity | 1 |
(m) | Transversal dispersivity | 0.1 |
(m2/N) | Compressibility of the matrix | 4.4 × 10−10 |
(m2/N) | Compressibility of the fluid | 2.4 × 10−10 |
Table 7.
Existence of NFs and alkali erosion in different cases.
Table 7.
Existence of NFs and alkali erosion in different cases.
Case Number | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 |
---|
NFs | No | Yes | Yes |
alkali erosion | No | No | Yes |
Table 8.
The correlation coefficients of the polynomial fit of porosity for the different pH values.
Table 8.
The correlation coefficients of the polynomial fit of porosity for the different pH values.
Coefficients | B3 | B2 | B1 | I |
---|
pH = 11.0 | 5.35894 × 10−27 | −5.20613 × 10−19 | 1.65838 × 10−11 | −1.11642 × 10−5 |
pH = 11.5 | 3.33411 × 10−26 | −3.14747 × 10−18 | 9.68256 × 10−11 | −5.86163 × 10−5 |
pH = 12.0 | 1.97884 × 10−24 | −8.47458 × 10−17 | 1.19144 × 10−9 | −3.76353 × 10−4 |
pH = 12.5 | 1.00852 × 10−22 | −2.08461 × 10−15 | 1.40358 × 10−8 | −1.95 × 10−3 |
pH = 13.0 | 5.58023 × 10−21 | −5.39404 × 10−14 | 1.69686 × 10−7 | −1.157 × 10−2 |