Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exercises Section6
Exercises Section6
Plug data
orientation:
length:
diameter:
area
horizontal
8.5 cm
2.54 cm
2
5.07 cm
S wi
0.2
oil:
density:
viscosity:
IFT to brine:
decane
3
730 kg/m
1.0E-03 Pa.s
3.5E-02
N/m
brine:
density:
viscosity:
Test data
step
100:0
90:10
70:30
50:50
30:70
10:90
5:95
1:99
0:100
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
15
25
35
45
47.5
49.5
50
q o (cm /hr)
50
45
35
25
15
2.5
0.5
delta P (Pa)
15580
79940
109400
117930
111700
84700
69940
46855
32535
0.2
0.435
0.49
0.525
0.56
0.61
0.635
0.685
0.72
o:w ratio
flow rate
3
(cm /hr)
q w (cm /hr)
K w,eff (mD)
K o,eff (mD)
k rw (to K oil@Swi )
k ro (to K oil@Swi )
S w (avg.)
reported
rp
(S w ) =
k pmeasured (S w )
k omeasured (S wirr )
(6.2.1)
However, as given in notes, the correct definition of relative permeability for a given phase is
k rp (S w ) =
k pmeasured (S w )
k abs
(6.2.2)
6.2.2: Apply your expression and plot the correctly re-scaled data
Using your expression, re-scale the reported relative permeability curves for all plugs and
plot them on the graphs provided. Plot the original (reported) data on the same axis for
comparison. How much do the relative permeability curves changed when they are properly
scaled?
6.2.3: Identify the end-point values
Using your properly scaled curves, identify the values of the following parameters:
1. End-point relative permeability to oil (k roe )
2. End-point relative permeability to water (k rwe )
3. Irreducible water saturation (S wirr )
4. Residual oil saturation to waterflooding (S orw )
(6.2.3)
S wn =
S w S wirr
1 S wirr S or
(1.6.3)
(1.6.4)
k ro (S w ) = k roe (1 S wn )
(1.6.5)
The relative permeability values can also be normalised by dividing by the end-point value,
yielding
p
e
k wn (S w ) = S wn
= k rw (S w ) k rw
(6.2.4)
k on (S w ) = (1 S wn ) = k ro (S w ) k roe
(6.2.5)
For each plug, plot the normalised relative permeability curves (so they scale between one
and zero on each axis). Can you fit a single normalised curve through all the data (i.e. can
you identify a single value of p and q for all plugs?
You have developed a simple relative permeability model here which allows curves to be
developed for any interval of rock for which the permeability and porosity values are known.
The regressions you have identified allow the end-points to be predicted, and the shape of the
curve is given by the values of p and q.
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil permeability at
SWI
170.966
Well
Depth
Test 1
1550
Plug No.
10
mD
Sw
kro
0.32
1
0.369
0.6561
0.418
0.4096
0.467
0.2401
0.516
0.1296
0.565
0.0625
0.614
0.0256
0.663
0.0081
0.712
0.0016
0.761
1E-04
0.81
0
krw
0
0.000466
0.003726
0.012575
0.029808
0.058219
0.100603
0.159753
0.238466
0.339534
0.465753
Relative
Relative
permeability
permeability
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0.1 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
Water saturation
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil
permeability
at SWI
442.68
Well
Depth
Plug No.
Test 1
1552.5
15
mD
1
0
0.000893
0.005051
0.013919
0.028572
0.049913
0.078735
0.115754
0.161628
0.216969
0.282353
kro krw
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
0.406
0.458
0.51
0.562
0.614
0.666
0.718
0.77
1
0.69159
0.457947
0.286974
0.167313
0.088388
0.040477
0.014789
0.003578
0.000316
0
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.25
0.302
0.354
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water saturation
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil
permeability
at SWI
232.8
Well
Depth
Plug No.
Test 1
1554.5
19
mD
1
0
0.000655
0.004562
0.014198
0.031774
0.059349
0.098884
0.152256
0.221285
0.307737
0.413333
kro krw
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
0.416
0.468
0.52
0.572
0.624
0.676
0.728
0.78
1
0.713799
0.489652
0.319384
0.195022
0.108819
0.053283
0.021222
0.005798
0.000631
0
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.26
0.312
0.364
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water saturation
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Well
Depth
Test 1
1556
183.057 mD
Plug No.
22
0.22
0.268
0.316
0.364
0.412
0.46
0.508
0.556
0.604
0.652
0.7
kro
krw
1
0.784798
0.598559
0.440276
0.30885
0.203063
0.121545
0.062716
0.024681
0.005012
0
0
0.002533
0.010858
0.025441
0.046548
0.074372
0.109066
0.150758
0.199555
0.255554
0.318841
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Well
Depth
Test 1
1557.5
Plug No.
25
62.452 mD
1
0.43
0.463
0.496
0.529
0.562
0.595
0.628
0.661
0.694
0.727
0.76
kro
krw
1
0.663049
0.418843
0.248818
0.136392
0.066986
0.028057
0.009136
0.001879
0.000126
0
0
0.012191
0.042453
0.08808
0.147831
0.220904
0.306711
0.404793
0.514776
0.636346
0.769231
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Well
Depth
Test 1
1559
Plug No.
28
372.69 mD
1
0.19
0.248
0.306
0.364
0.422
0.48
0.538
0.596
0.654
0.712
0.77
kro
krw
1
0.69159
0.457947
0.286974
0.167313
0.088388
0.040477
0.014789
0.003578
0.000316
0
0
0.001234
0.006981
0.019237
0.03949
0.068986
0.108821
0.159986
0.223389
0.299876
0.390244
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Well
Depth
Test 1
1561
260.224 mD
Plug No.
32
0.21
0.257
0.304
0.351
0.398
0.445
0.492
0.539
0.586
0.633
0.68
kro
krw
1
0.801511
0.625877
0.472831
0.342072
0.233258
0.145991
0.079791
0.034054
0.007943
0
0
0.00381
0.014219
0.030722
0.053067
0.081088
0.114657
0.153674
0.198055
0.247728
0.302632
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Well
Depth
Test 1
1562
Plug No.
34
92.125 mD
1
0.38
0.417
0.454
0.491
0.528
0.565
0.602
0.639
0.676
0.713
0.75
kro
krw
1
0.635686
0.383078
0.215735
0.111186
0.050766
0.019447
0.005644
0.000987
5.01E-05
0
0
0.001882
0.009933
0.026285
0.052427
0.089565
0.138731
0.200838
0.276711
0.367107
0.472727
0.9
0.8
Relative permeability
Sw
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water saturation
0.8
Question 6.3 Integration of permeability from core and pressure transient test
The aim of this exercise is to compare permeability estimates from core and from an
interpretation of a pressure transient test. Data integration at this basic level is essential to
ensure consistency between different data sources and interpretation models.
Background
Table 6.3.1 reports values of porosity and horizontal permeability against depth. The data
were obtained from a vertical well in an oil bearing sandstone reservoir which contains some
shale. The gamma ray log is also shown. Figure 6.3.2 shows a relative permeability curve
measured over the same interval. A pressure transient test has also been obtained over the
interval 1551 1561m.
6.3.1: Calculate the average horizontal permeability of the tested interval
Use the expression for flow parallel to layering you derived yesterday. Be careful to note the
irregular data spacing. What limit of effective permeability does your average represent?
6.3.2: Calculate the average horizontal permeability of the tested interval to oil
To compare permeability estimates from core and test, it is important to remember that the
test measures the permeability of the reservoir to the flowing phase. In this case, the test
flowed oil in the presence of connate water.
Use the data shown in Figure 6.3.2 to convert your average reservoir permeability to an
average permeability to oil, so that it can be compared with the estimate from test.
6.3.3: Compare your average horizontal permeability value with that obtained from the
pressure-transient test interpretation.
Interpretation of a pressure-transient test over the same interval yield an estimate of
horizontal permeability of 363.4mD (you will learn more about interpretation methods next
week). How does this compare with your calculated average value? Can you explain why
they might be different?
6.3.4: Calculate the average vertical permeability of the tested interval
Use the expression for flow perpendicular to layering you derived yesterday. Be careful to
note the irregular data spacing. What limit of effective permeability does your average
represent? What assumption have you made about permeability at the plug scale? Is this
reasonable? What value of k v /k h ratio do you obtain?
6.3.5: Calculate the average vertical permeability of the tested interval to oil
6.3.6: Compare your average vertical permeability value (and k v /k h ratio) with that obtained
from the pressure-transient test interpretation.
Interpretation of a pressure-transient test over the same interval yields an estimate of vertical
permeability of 2.4mD. How does this compare with your calculated average value? What
value of k v /k h ratio does this yield, and how does this compare with your calculated value?
Can you explain why they might be different?
Depth (m)
1550
1550.5
1551
1552.5
1553
1553.5
1554
1554.5
1555
1555.5
1556
1557
1557.5
1558
1558.5
1559
1559.5
1561
1561.5
1562
Poro (%)
18.1
21.3
18.1
23.2
19.2
18.7
21.3
20.2
21.4
24.3
19.3
17.4
15.8
22.3
21.3
23.2
20.2
19.4
21.3
17.8
kh (mD)
234.2
843.2
310.2
520.8
89.5
201.4
345.3
310.4
523.2
1564.5
256.3
45.7
120.1
289.5
313.4
454.5
245.3
342.4
876.5
167.5
50
100
150
1548
1550
Depth (m)
1552
1554
1556
1558
1560
1562
1564
1
0.9
Relative permeability
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water saturation
Figure 6.3.3. Relative permeability curves, plotted with respect to K abs (not K o ). These are
the same curves you de-normalized in the previous question.
1
0.9
0.8
Endpoints
0.7
Kroe
y = 1.7245x + 0.0531
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
RQI
Figure 6.3.4. k roe versus RQI. The regression yields k roe = 1.7245RQI + 0.0531. These are
the same data that you plotted in the previous exercise.
Question 6.4
One approach to analysing multiple capillary pressure curves from a given rock type is to
convert them to a J-Function and fit a single curve through the dimensionless data. This
curve can then be rescaled to local values of k and within the rock type.
6.4.1 Convert the gas-brine capillary pressure data in table 6.4.1, obtained at laboratory
conditions, to a J-Function form, assuming the plug from which these data were
collected had a porosity of 0.21 and a permeability of 245 mD, and using appropriate
values of contact angle and IFT. It is recommended that you convert all parameters to
SI units before calculating the J-Function; this will make it easier to apply in later
analysis.
6.4.2 Plot the J-function data as a function of water saturation and try to fit a curve to the
data. Common curve fits include
J = A + B(S w S wirr )
(6.4.1)
(6.4.2)
Table 6.4.2 shows permeability and porosity data as a function of depth within the
reservoir. Use you J-Function curve, along with the fluid properties from question
4.4, and assuming capillary-gravity equilibrium, to predict and plot water saturation as
a function of height above the FWL, accounting for the variations in k and . This is
a common application of capillary pressure data. Note that capillary-gravity
equilibrium yields
J (S w ) =
Pc(S w ) k ( w o )gh k
=
co
co
(6.4.3)
The approach is to calculate J(S w ) for each height h using 6.4.3 and the corresponding
values of k and (Table 6.4.2), and then calculate S w for this value of J by rearranging your chosen curve fit.
Sw
0.23
0.27
0.31
0.35
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.85
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.00
1.00
P c (Pa)
13131
5848
2968
2062
1625
1369
1202
1085
998
932
879
836
801
772
746
725
706
690
675
662
650
0
Table 6.4.1. Air-brine capillary pressure data measured during drainage at laboratory
conditions using the porous-plate method
Depth (mTVDSS)
1393.1
1393.4
1393.7
1394
1394.3
1394.6
1394.9
1395.2
1395.5
1395.8
1396.1
1396.4
1396.7
1397
1397.3
1397.6
1397.9
1398.2
1398.5
1398.8
1399.1
1399.4
1399.7
1400
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.24
0.19
0.18
0.2
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.18
0.21
0.12
k (mD)
234
58
45
56
890
670
210
105
98
234
670
125
216
703
324
126
453
34
21
11
34
21
345
321