Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Colin McPhee SPE London May 26 2015 & Backup - Petrophysic
Colin McPhee SPE London May 26 2015 & Backup - Petrophysic
Colin McPhee
SPE London May 26 2015
=
Modelling is finished, but the forecasts do not match observations,
imagine the reaction to a request to go back & check core data inputs.
Often happens & each time the teams protestations are loud.
Very hard to stop the geomodel juggernaut, usually built on a tight
budget that is almost spent & to a deadline that is getting closer
2
STOIIP GRV
fw
N
1
1 Sw
G
B0
k ro w
.
k rw o
Core damage
During coring
Oil-based mud usually alters
wettability
Difficult to remove sometimes
Mud invasion and shear failure in
weak rock
Porosity
Permeability
Relative Permeability
Porosity
Core porosity - Total or Effective?
Humidity dry for effective porosity?
Matrix
Effective Porosity e
VClay
Grains
Clay
Layers
Small
Pores
Bound Water
Capillary
Water
Structural Water
Large Pores
Isolated Pores
Volume
available for
storage
Irreducible or
Immobile Water
May be significant in
Carbonates
9
Porosity (RCA)
Vg & VbHg
Vp & Vg
Vg+VbHg
10
Porosity Change
1.00
0.80
0.60
Porosity Change
(p.u.)
Porosity Change Post-Test (p.u.)
0.40
+ 0.25 p.u.
0.20
0.00
-0.20
- 0.25 p.u.
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
11
Permeability
What is the permeability in your static 3D model?
10000
Kl (mD)
1000
100
10
y = 0.851x1.020
R2 = 1.000
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Kg (mD)
Air permeability?
Klinkenberg? measured or from a correlation?
Brine?
Ambient or stressed?
What stress?
How measured steady or unsteady-state?
How were plugs prepared?
Does it matter?
12
J Function
Normalised Sw
13
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Sw (frac)
14
dS
d ( Pci )
130
120
Hassler Brunner
Average
Dean-Stark Sw
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Water Saturation
10
20
30
40
50
60
Brine Saturation(%)
70
80
90
100
15
Centrifuge
No entry pressure (compared to MICP & PP) - Abrupt transition to Swir
MICP
PP Pc
Centrifuge
16
Water Saturation
1.00
Pc=2.900 psi
Pc=5.075 psi
Pc=20.01 psi
0.80
Pc=36.250 psi
Pc=72.500 psi
Water saturation, Sw
Pc=101.500 psi
Water Saturation
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
50
100days
Time,
150
200
Time (days)
Water Saturation
17
Imbibition Pc (water-oil)
4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Capillary Pressure
(psi)
Pc (psi)
-20
-40
Senergy Average
(Forbes-1 Press.)
Senergy Average
(Forbes-2 Press.)
Senergy Endface
(Forbes-1 Pc)
Senergy Endface
(Forbes-2 Pc)
Rep. Lab Average
(Forbes-2 Pc)
Rep. Lab Endface
(Forbes-2)
Rep. Lab DS Sw
-60
-80
-100
-120
Water Saturation
Sw (frac.)
10
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
-20
-40
Pc (psi)
-60
-80
-100
Senergy Average
(Forbes-1 Press.)
Senergy Average
(Forbes-2 Press.)
Senergy Endface
(Forbes-1 Pc)
Senergy Endface
(Forbes-2 Pc)
Rep. Lab Average
(Forbes-2 Pc)
Rep. Lab Endface
(Forbes-2)
Rep. Lab DS Sw
-120
18
Water Saturation
Sw (frac.)
Relative permeability
0.8
Clean
State
Fresh
State
0.7
Restored
State
0.6
C = 0.6
0.5
0.4
C = 1.5
0.3
C = 2.5
0.2
0.1
C = 10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
19
WW
SWW
MW
SOW
OW
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
Saturation
0.8
201
Water Saturation
Ncres x100
Ncres x10
Ncres
Sample Length
Length along core (slice)
21
Sample Length
Nc_res x100
Nc_res x10
Nc_res
Capllary Pressure
Differential Pressure
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Water Saturation
-7
-8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water Saturation
Sample Length
Nc = k DP
s Dx
Drilling &
Completions
In place calculations
Recovery factor
Petrophysics &
Geology
Reservoir
Engineering
Focal point
Laboratory
25
0
%
Sw(NaI)
100
%
Water Saturation
X-ray adsorption
26
Length along core (slice)
27
28
29
Plugbook
Core Plug History Chart
Plug data
Base properties
porosity and permeability
History
when/how cut, cleaned & dried
Plug photographs
pre-and post-test
Plug Parameters
116
3906.20
5.02
3.88
0.340
10.6
2.648
0.182
10.1
Paste here
Paste here
Paste here
Paste here
Hot solvent cleaned; oven dried @ 95C; and Kphi
Pressure saturate & Archimede's porosity
Centrifuge air-brine capillary pressure
Dean-Stark
Hg injection and CEC on offcuts
Post-test photographs:
Post-test photography
Paste here
Paste here
Report
Paste here
30
Summary
Lab test pitfalls have a huge
impact on core analysis modelling
data input
But....
uncertainties are recognisable
and manageable
best practice, real-time QC, and
robust workflows ensure that core
data are fit for purpose prior to
petrophysical analysis.
a forensic data quality
assessment can minimise data
redundancy and reduce
uncertainty in reservoir models
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get - Warren Buffet
31
Questions?
32