Permeability Estimation:
The Various Sources and
Summary. Rock-formation perme-
ability is one important flow parame-
ter associated with subsurface pro-
duction and injection. Its importance
is reflected by the number of avail-
able techniques (well-log evaluation,
core measurements, and well testing)
typically used to estimate it. The liter-
ature is full of comparisons and corre-
lations of permeability from these
sources. Too often these compari-
sons and correlations are used to
make important conclusions without
proper regard to the interrelation-
ships among them. Permeability esti-
mates by individual techniques within
the various permeability sources can
vary with the state of rock (in-situ en-
vironment), fluid saturation distribu-
tion, flow direction, and the scale of
the medium under investigation. This
paper reviews the commercially
available permeability-estimation
techniques and discusses the impor"
tant factors that illustrate their interre-
lationships. Knowledge of appropri-
ate interrelationships among the
various techniques allows meaningful
permeability comparisons and corre-
lations. Usefulness of the interrela-
tionships is demonstrated with field
data. Also, the interrelationship con-
cepts presented are a cornerstone
for reservoir flow characterization.
578
Their Interrelationships
Usman Ahmed, SPE, S.F. Crary, SPE, and G.R. Coates, * SPE,
Schlumberger Well Services
Introduction
Of all the formation parameters that petro-
leum engineers use, permeability is one of
the most important. In the oil and gas in-
dustry it is used to determine whether a well
should be completed and brought on line. 1
Permeability is also essential in overall
reservoir management and development
(e.g., for choosing the optimal drainage
points and production rate, optimizing com-
pletion and perforation design, and devising
EOR patterns and injection conditions).
Oil and gas companies use both accurate
and approximate permeability values. These
values frequently are compared and correlat-
ed without much attention to how each value
was determined. Such comparisons and
correlations are then used to make impor-
tant conclusions about formation flow poten-
tial and for various aspects of reservoir
management and development. But estab-
lishing a correlation between unstressed core
plug permeability and drillstem-testing
(DST) permeability and then using the cor-
relation with other unstressed core plug per-
meabilities to evaluate the flow potential of
other zones, for example, may be futile un-
less the scale factor, measurement environ-
ment, and physics are adequately consid-
ered. The scale factor considers the relative
size of the volumes being investigated and
the nature of heterogeneity, and the meas-
urement environment and physics consider
the state of the rock environment, fluid satu-
ration distribution, flow direction, and sen-
sitivity of the measured or inferred varia-
bles that constitute permeability calculations.
To address the appropriate correlations
among techniques, we first define the vari-
ous permeabilities that are measured by the
various techniques.
Permeability Definitions
The classic definition of permeability, as de-
scribed by Darcy, 2 is the intrinsic charac-
teristic of a material that determines how
easily a fluid can pass through it. In the pe-
troleum industry, the darcy is the standard
unit of measure for permeability. It repre-
sents 1 cm 3 of fluid with a viscosity of 1
'Now at NUMAR Corp.
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
cp flowing through a l-cm 2 cross-sectional
area of rock in 1 second under a pressure
gradient of 1 atm per 1 cm of length in the
direction of flow. This intrinsic rock prop-
erty is called absolute permeability when the
rock is 100% saturated with one fluid phase.
Permeability is also measured in reference
to a fluid phase when the rock is saturated
with a multiple-fluid phase. Such a perme-
ability is the effective permeability of the
rock to the particular flowing fluid. (The
ratio of effective to absolute permeability is
the relative permeability.) These definitions
are simple and straightforward when the
measurement is performed in the laboratory.
When downhole rock permeability is-meas-
ured, however, complications arise because
of lack of knowledge about the downhole
environment, the volume, and the measure-
ment method.
Almost every discipline within the oil in-
dustry has its own definition of permeabil-
ity. This inconsistency creates a significant
problem when permeability is to be used to
defme the production performance of a par-
ticular formation, reservoir, or well. A core
analyst's version of permeability may be an
accurate representation of the l-in.-dia-
meter, l-in.-Iong core sample; however, the
measured value may have no significant
bearing on the production characteristic of
the formation represented by the core sam-
ple. The core measures absolute permeabil-
ity, but formation flow is governed by rela-
tive permeability. Also, core permeabilities
are influenced by the microscopic nature of
the measurement and the environment (ab-
sence of in-situ pressure, temperature, and
saturation conditions). At times, a combi-
nation of these influences may result in a
permeability that corresponds to the well
flow performance, but this is more a coin-
cidence than a planned result. Similar con-
sequences are observed when petrophysicists
evaluate permeability with log-measured
values. Most log methods, except the repeat-
formation-tester (RFTsM) method, measure
absolute permeability. Even though the pa-
rameters used to infer permeability from
logs are measured at in-situ conditions, the
complexity of rock structures and inadequate
parameterization make the log-derived per-
meability transforms nonuniversal. Log-
May 1991 • JPT

40 60 80 100
20
Swi (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
<P
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Swi (%)
Fig. i-Charts for estimating permeability from porosity and water saturation.
derived techniques can provide level-by-
level (foot-by-foot) permeability values.
Well-test permeability, however, is a direct
measurement of the flow that provides per-
meability when the contributing interval is
known but that lacks foot-by-foot resolution.
During the well test, if more than one fluid
phase is produced, then the calculated per-
meability may not predict well performance
accurately. Unlike most core- and log-
measured permeability, well-test and RFT
methods measure effective permeability.
Detailed, accurate reservoir characteriza-
tion demands the use of various measure-
ments. Therefore, we need to understand the
various permeability measurement tech-
niques used by the industry.
Permeability
Measurement Techniques
The three major permeability measurement
techniques are wireline-log analysis (includ-
ing the RFT method), laboratory testing of
core samples, and well testing.
Wireline-Log Measurements. Five meth-
ods are established for obtaining permeabil-
ity from wireline tool measurements 1: (1)
empirical correlation of permeability with
porosity, 1>, and intergranular surface area;
(2) measurement of producible formation
fluid with the nuclear magnetism log
(NMLsM); (3) estimate of mineral concen-
trations by the geochemical logging tool
(GLTsM); (4) correlation of permeability
with Stoneley wave velocity by acoustic log-
ging tools; and (5) pressure/time measure-
ment of formation fluids with the RFT tool.
Empirical Correlations. The first equa-
tion relating measurable rock properties with
JPT • May 1991
40 60 80
Swi(%)
20 40 60 80 100
Swi (%)
permeability was proposed in 1927 by Koze-
ny and modified by Carman 3 ,4:
k=1>3/[5A g 2(1-1»2], ........... (1)
where A g = surface area of grains exposed
to fluid per unit volume of solid material. 3
Eq. 1 describes permeability in packs of uni-
formly sized spheres, such as powder packs.
This formulation breaks down in other
sands. The greatest drawback is that A g can
be determined only by means of core sam-
ples, and then only with special care and
equipment. However, this model notes that
porosity alone cannot reliably predict per-
meability and that it is somehow inversely
related to the exposed surface area.
Not surprisingly, the first approach to
finding permeability from logs did not use
the surface area concept directly. Starting
with Tixier,5 Wyllie and Rose 6 conjec-
tured that grain surface area was related ap-
proximately to irreducible water saturation,
SWi' of clean sandstone. Timur 7 extended
Wyllie and Rose's empiricism on the basis
oflaboratory studies of 155 sandstone cores.
The derivations so far suffer from two
limitations: the difficulty of deriving Swi
from logs and yielding zero permeabilities
when Swi approaches 100% and when
porosity approaches zero. These derivations
honor only the porosity limit for zero per-
meability approximation and disregard Swi
approaching 100%. The derivation of Swi
from resistivity logs needs a more method-
ical approach.
With the introduction of the Coates-
Dumanoir 8 relationship of the free-fluid
model, a new equation was derived that en-
sured zero permeability at zero porosity and
when Sw;=IOO%. Coates and Deno0 9 ac-
commodated the two conditions with the fol-
"Because of Increased
fluid production,
permeabilities
estimated during
superflow correspond
with the hydrocarbon-
related effective
permeability more than
with the Invaded fluid
movement."
lowing relationship:
k'h = 1001>e 2 [(I-Swi)/Swi], ....... (2)
where 1> e = effective porosity. Determining
Swi for rocks that are not at irreducible
water saturation is difficult, if not impossi-
ble in some cases. Height above the water
table alters Sw;' so that even in a single li-
thology, Swi may vary from top to bottom.
In many reservoirs, however, the variance
in Sw; is small, especially if we consider it
to be bulk volume. Morris and Biggs 10 ob-
served that it is generally easier to predict
a rock's bulk-volume irreducible water,
Vbwi =1>( Swi' than the actual value of Sw;'
This requires a slight modification of Eq.
2, made by multiplying the numerator and
denominator by total porosity, 1>( :
kY2 = 1001>e2 ( 1>( - VbWi). .. ..... (3)
Vbwi
Fig. 1 compares the free-fluid model with
previous versions. Note the differences in
curve patterns as Swi approaches 100%.
Permeability correlations with Swi and 1>
are of limited use in carbonates because of
low effective porosity (1)e is typically 5 to
20 porosity units), while permeability can
span 0.2 to 2,000 md. 1 Porosity in car-
bonates may not be intergranular. There-
fore, using surface areas from porosity does
not work very well. New methods 11,12 cur-
rently being developed for carbonate rocks
use core data to define surface area and pore
path tortuosity better.
NML Measurements. The NML provides
two specific products that can be related to
formation permeability. 13-15 One is the
free-fluid index, IFf' a measure of mova-
ble fluid (oil and water but not gas). The
579

_RFTIOoI _RFTIOoI _RFTIOoI
In 18.fnch hole. _ in 18-1nch hole. ,., in caved hole.
~
(To Uppel (To Lower
Sample Semple
Chamber) Chamber)'
Fig. 2-RFT tool setup and schematic of
sampling system.
other is spin-lattice relaxation time, tl, the
time constant involving the alignment of pro-
ton spin axes along magnetic fields.
IFf typically is obtained by applying a
large, polarizing magnetic field to the for-
mation and then turning it off. Signal de-
cay in solids and bound fluids is too rapid
for detection with the NML tool. Only de-
cay in the free fluid can be measured, and
IFf is proportional to the number of protons
in free fluid. Thus, IFf is related to Swi by
Swi=I-(IFf lcp), ................ (4)
which can be applied to Eqs. 1 through 3.
fl is a property of the rock and fluid wet-
ting its pore surfaces and thus relates to pore
size. Because permeability is proportionaJ.
to the square of pore size, it is reasonable
to assume I6 ,17 that k is proportional to t12.
On the basis of a study of 80 sandstone cores
from wells worldwide, Kenyon et at. 17 re-
lated tl to k as follows:
k= 1.6 x 1O-9tI2.3cp4.3 . .......... (5)
NML responses in carbonates differ from
those in sandstones. It is not surprising,
therefore, that a reasonable correlation be-
tween tl and permeability has been found in
only a few carbonates. 18
GLT Measurements. GLT measures the
concentrations of 10 elements in a forma-
tion by borehole nuclear spectrometry. The
basis for obtaining permeability from
elemental concentrations is that any changes
in mineralogy are accompanied by changes
in the size, shape, and morphology of rock
grains. 19 These changes affect the pore
system geometry, which directly influences
permeability .
580
The GLT measurements are transformed
into mineral concentrations and substituted
for the surface-area term in a logarithmic
form of the Kozeny-Carman relationship
(Eq. 1), as illustrated in Ref. 19:
log lO k=Tm +310g lO («/»-210g lO (1-<</»
+,£Bdi, ................. (6)
where Tm = textural maturity based on feld-
spar content, Bi=mineral constant (for
clays, cements, and framework minerals),
and fi = weight fraction of each mineral in
the solid rock. The surface-area term can
also be substituted in the Coates-Dumanoir
free-fluid model. 8
Stoneley-Wave Attenuation and Disper-
sion. The Stoneley wave is acoustic energy
that travels predominantly along the bore-
hole wall. It is generated when an acoustic
pulse from a sonic logging tool meets the
interface between the borehole wall and the
borehold fluid. 20-22 If the borehole crosses
a permeable formation, the Stoneley wave
attenuates by moving fluid in the pores. It
is also dispersed, meaning that different fre-
quency components are slowed at different
rates.
This attenuation and dispersion relates to
the formation's permeability, matrix or na-
tural fractures. Although correlations be-
tween Stoneley behavior and permeability
have been observed in the field, a quantita-
tive prediction of permeability from Stone-
ley energy measurements has eluded inves-
tigators. 23 ,24 Various investigations, how-
ever, continue to use Stoneley waves to
directly measure permeability and as a frac-
ture indicator. 25
RFJ'Measurements. The formation-tester
tool samples reservoir fluids and measures
formation pressure vs. time at specific depth
stations (see Fig. 2). With the RFT, three
sets of data can be collected to quantify per-
meability. The first two (in association with
pretest) are relatively quick, and the last one,
called superjlow, can last several minutes.
The tool is first positioned to allow mud
filtrate and formation fluids to fill a first
_sample chamber at a controlled, low flow
rate (first pretest). This step is followed im-
mediately by the filling of a second sample
chamber at a controlled, high flow rate (sec-
ond pretest). This phase of the test is called
drawdown. The subsequent phase of the test,
buildup, is a measurement of increasing
pressure once the chambers are filled. The
final phase, superflow, involves long-term
drawdown while measuring the cumulative
volume and transient pressures.
Both the drawdown and buildup tests pro-
vide a permeability value that is often reflec-
tive of near-wellbore fluid movement. 26 To
calculate permeability, the pressure deriva-
tive 27 is first plotted to identify the flow
regime and is followed by specialized plots.
For drawdown pressures, where normal (10-
cm 3 ) pretest chambers are used, the flow
pattern is typically hemispherical, a mixture
of horizontal and vertical flow with a bias
to horizontal. Buildup permeability typically
illustrates a spherical flow pattern, a mix-
ture of horizontal and vertical flow with a
bias to the vertical. Buildup permeability
measurements are reliable only in low-
permeability formations ( < 50 md) because
of limitations in the resolution of the pres-
sure measurements. 28
During superflow, the pressure data are
history-matched, taking into account the cu-
mulative fluid production. Because of in-
creased fluid production, permeabilities es-
timated during superflow correspond with
the hydrocarbon-related effective permea-
bility more than with the invaded fluid
movement.
Core Permeability. Core analysis allows
direct measurement of permeability under
controlled laboratory conditions. For this
reason, core-derived permeabilities are often
considered to be the standard. This notion,
however, can be misleading. Core permea-
bility is an accurate representation of a par-
ticular core sample under specific labora-
tory conditions. Using this permeability
value to represent reservoir formation per-
meability can be incorrect. As long as the
measurements are consistent over a partic-
ular interval, however, the core permeabil-
ity can be very useful in completion design,
specifically in choosing the phasing and ver-
tical spacing of perforation.
Cores are analyzed on four length scales.
The smallest scale is the sidewall core anal-
ysis, in which samples < 1 in. long are taken
from the wellbore. The scale of the core plug
is also very similar, in which samples 1 to
1 V2 in. long are taken from a full-diameter
core every 6 in. These small sample sizes
can bias the sample in heterogeneous for-
mations, in which permeability can vary
widely from one sample to the next. Full-
diameter core analysis tests 6-in. sections of
core and samples on the medium scale. The
largest-scale sampling is whole-core analy-
sis, in which cores up to 2 ft long are test-
ed. The number of whole-core tests is limit-
ed, however, primarily because of the
difficulty in recovering such pieces.
Two types of permeability can be meas-
ured on core samples in the laboratory: ab-
solute and relative core permeability.
Absolute Core Permeability. Two com-
monly used techniques to measure absolute
core permeabilities are the steady-state and
the pulse-decay methods. 29 ,30 The pulse-
decay method was introduced for low-
permeability rocks where attainment of
steady state can take anywhere from days
to weeks. In both techniques, air or water
can be used as the fluid medium.
The cores are cleaned and dried before
they are measured. In the steady-state tech-
nique, air permeability, the most common
measurement, is obtained by placing the
core in a chamber and measuring the pres-
sure differential and stabilized flow rate of
air pumped through the rock. Permeability
is calculated for this single phase with the
Darcy equation. In the pulse-decay method,
the core is subjected to a pressure pulse, as
May 1991 • JPT
when a pressure transient is imposed. The
subsequent pressure-transient falloff is
measured and analyzed for permeability.
With both techniques, three values are
usually established: the maximum horizon-
tal permeability, kmax ; the permeability at
90° to kmax , k90; and the vertical permea-
bility, kv. Air permeability is higher than
liquid permeability and requires a correc-
tion in low-permeability formations. This
correction accounts for gas slippage (a gas
has a higher velocity near a grain surface
than does liquid), commonly known as the
Klinkenberg effect. 31
Relative Core Permeability. Relative core
permeabilities are measured in several ways.
A common method is the steady-state tech-
nique, where the core is saturated with the
wetting phase (usually water) and oil and
water are flowed together in proportion to
maintain the desired water saturation. The
resulting flow rates and pressures determine
the relative permeabilities to each fluid.
Another technique is to saturate the core
with oil, then displace the oil with water
while monitoring the pressure and
volumetric flow rates of the two fluids. This
permits calculation of the relative permea-
bilities as functions of water saturation. The
pulse-decay technique can also be applied
to measure relative permeability as long as
the pulsing pressure is lower than the capil-
lary pressure of the saturating fluid. 30
Permeability From Well Testing. The
many procedures that fall under well test-
ing can be classified into three categories:
(1) short-term tests involving DST,
IMPULSEsM testing, and transient-rate and
-pressure testing (TRApsM) where the
radius of investigation is typically limited;
(2) conventional tests-classic pressure
drawdown (or injection test) and pressure
buildup (or falloff test) involving single or
step rate; and (3) advanced tests involving
methods beyond the traditional single-layer
horizontal-permeability evaluation, includ-
ing layered reservoir testing, vertical inter-
ference testing, and multiwell interference
testing. Although each technique has a
different application, all involve making an
abrupt change in flow-starting, stopping,
or abridging flow, injecting fluid, or chang-
ing the flow from one value to another.
Reservoir properties are deduced from the
well's response to these changes, measured
by bottomhole pressure (BHP) gauges and
bottomhole transient rates in TRAP and
layered reservoir testing. 32
Shori-Term Testing. This group includes
techniques that require a relatively short test
period; thus the radius of investigation is
relatively shallow (typically < 100 ft).
DST. Short-term DST typically is done in
open hole after drilling through a promis-
ing zone. (Wells with unconsolidated rock
formation, typically offshore wells, are
cased and cemented, and then cased-hole
long-term DST is performed by means of
perforations.) DST involves two drawdowns
with subsequent buildups. Interpretation
steps are similar to those for RFT draw-
JPT • May 1991
End of impulse
!t
Fig. 3-Typical IMPULSE test plot.
downs and buildups (pressure derivative for
flow-regime identification and specialized
plots to calculate permeability). Because of
the short test times, DST permeability esti-
mates can be obscured by wellbore storage
and drilling mud invasion. 33
IMPULSE Testing. IMPULSE-testing
techniques allow one to test the well after
a perforation job without making an extra
trip.34,35 The well is subjected to an instan-
taneous rate drawdown or injection for a
couple of minutes and followed by a shut-
in period long enough to achieve the desired
radius of investigation. Instant withdrawal
or injection of a unit volume of fluid causes
a change in pressure proportional to the
derivative of the reservoir's pressure
response. Therefore, the IMPULSE testing
plot (Fig. 3) allows flow-regjme identifica-
tion similar to that of RFT tests. The test
data can then be type-curve-matched and/or
plotted as a rate-normalized Homer plot 35
to calculate permeability.
TRAP. TRAP testing uses the transient
downhole pressure and rate. 36 ,37 The tech-
nique was introduced in the early 1980's to
combat the existence of variable flow rate
during drawdown tests and to eliminate well-
bore storage effects. The elimination of
wellbore storage is used here to shorten the
test duration. Even though the test takes less
than a couple of hours, the calculated for-
mation permeability is typically unaffected
by near-wellbore damage.
Conventional Testing. There are many
variations of conventional well-test methods.
For the past 40 years, the two most straight-
forward ways to measure permeability have
been drawdown and buildup tests, per-
formed in fundamentally the same manner
as RFT drawdown and buildup tests. The
buildup test is more common than the draw-
down test because the flow rate is known
when the well is shut in. Before shut-in, a
constant flow rate is typically maintained for
a period of time. For the buildup test, the
pressure vs. time is measured continuously
beginning at shut-in. The same variables as
in the drawdown test are used to obtain per-
meability, but the plot is BHP vs. superpo-
Pressure
Derivative
Time (Log scaled)
sition time function, which accounts for pro-
duction history.
In these tests, the rate does not have to
remain constant. In the case of varying flow
rate, accurate analysis can be performed as
long as the bottomhole rate data are
available. 36
Advanced Test Techniques. These tech-
niques go beyond the traditional single-layer
horizontal-permeability evaluation. Included
in this group are layered reservoir testing,
vertical interference testing, and multiwell
interference testing.
Layered Reservoir Testing. With use of
regular production logging tools (equipped
with at least the pressure and flowmeter
sonde), one can evaluate the permeability
of individual layers by imposing a transient
at each layer and measuring the pressure and
flow-rate response. This technique has been
applied successfully to several reservoirs and
requires good, stable flow-rate data. 38,39
Recently, low-flow-rate meters, like the in-
flatable diverter flowmeter (IDFsM) tool,4O
have been introduced to address low-
permeability reservoirs.
Vertical Interference Testing. In vertical
interference testing, a pressure transient is
applied to one horizon and pressure is meas-
ured at another horizon in the same well.
Vertical interference testing permits the as-
sessment of presence and degree of vertical
communication and vertical permeability.
Multiwell Interference Testing. In mul-
tiwell testing, the transient is applied at one
horizon in one well and the pressure is meas-
ured at the same horizon in another well.
This can yield an average permeability /
thickness value and indicate the horizontal
extent of the reservoir and whether the two
wells are in horizontal communication.
Technique Interrelationships
More than a dozen techniques were identi-
fied that provide rock or formation perme-
ability estimates. The three most important
factors that differentiate between the in-
dividual techniques are scale factor, meas-
urement environment, and the measurement
physics.
581

G/GA
.-----~
Fig. 4-Conceptual scales associated
with porous media averages (from Ref.
41).
Scale Factor. Haldorsen 41 makes a good
attempt to conceptualize scales of averag-
ing volumes into four groups for porous me-
dia averages.
1. Microscopic relates to pores and sand
grains. Scalewise, all the techniques dis-
cussed here pertain to a larger volume, so
this category is not discussed in detail.
2. Macroscopic relates to conventional
core-plug scale.
3. Megascopic relates to the scale of grid-
blocks in simulation models and is repre-
sented by the wireline-Iog measurement
scale.
4. Gigascopic relates to total formation or
regional scale and is represented by well-
test area of investigation.
Fig. 4 illustrates the scale concept.
Macroscopic-Scale Data-Core Analysis.
Dimensions of typical core plugs retrieved
for routine core analysis result in volumes,
VC ' on the order of6.82xlO- 4 ft3.
A single core-plug permeability, kC' is
used to represent 1 ft of core. This 1-ft-Iong
larger volume (assuming a core diameter of
4 in.) represents a volume of 8.7xlO-2
ft3. The ratios between these two volumes
is on the order of 130. Therefore, even with-
in the core-analysis perspective, the core-
plug permeability represents only 1/13Oth
of the 1-ft full-diameter volume. Hence, it
can be risky selecting one randomly drawn
sample to represent the average permeabil-
ity of a rock volume 130 times larger.
When permeabilities from larger volumes
(i.e., whole cores of varying lengths) are
compared with kc, the volume is repre-
sented as product of the number of whole-
core feet and the volume of a 1-ft whole
core. As the size of the averaging volume
increases beyond the whole-core range, we
begin to encroach into the megascopic scale.
These megascopic core volumes cannot be
directly measured, but are arrived at by
arithmetic, harmonic, or geometric averag-
ing of the macroscopic core-plug mea-
surements available within the prescribed
megascopic volume. This same principle of
582
averaging applies when megascopic log data
are compared.
Megascopic-Scale Data- Wireline-Log
Data. Here we examine the volume of rock
that wireline logs (specifically permeability-
estimation logs) encompass. The typical in-
vestigation depth of permeability-related
logs (neutron-porosity, density, and gamma
ray) from 6 to 12 in. (conservatively). We
use 9 in. in our calculation. The appropri-
ate permeability estimate deduced from
wireline logs measuring 2 ft of rock at a time
about 9 in. into the formation (assuming
wellbore diameter of 77's in.) encompasses
a log volume, V LOG ' of roughly 6.6 ft3.
The ratio oflog-to-core volume, VLOGlVc ,
is then ""9,660.
Haldorsen's41 and Collins'42 work in
statistically homogeneous reservoirs regard-
ing the normal or Gaussian form of porosity
distribution could be applied to log-perme-
ability distribution. The permeability stan-
dard deviation, (lk, ofthe permeability dis-
tribution can then be shown to vary inversely
as the square root of the volume per sample:
(lk =.JVJ; (kf ) . ................. (7)
Thus, to relate log and core permeabilities,
the theoretical standard deviation of per-
meabilities estimated from wireline logs,
(lk(LOGlc)' is given by
(l k(LOGlc) = "';'(""Vc-)/"-(""VL-O-G-) kc
=1.021 x 10 2 k c . ........ (8)
Also, the theoretical standard deviation of
core-measured permeability, (lk(clLOG)' to
log permeability is
(lk(clLOG) =98.38kLOG· .......... (9)
Gigascopic-Scale Data-Well-Test Data.
Gigascopic permeability estimates are pos-
sible with transient-pressure testing, espe-
cially through long-term drawdown and
buildup tests. For most well tests, the radius
of investigation varies from hundreds to
thousands of feet and normally engulfs
large-scale heterogeneities. The horizontal
permeability calculated from such a test is
essentially a gross average over the vast
'volume and correctly represents total reser-
voir flow behavior. For a test in a 100-ft-
thick sand with a 1,Ooo-ft radius of investi-
gation, the volume is ,.,,3.14x10 8 ft3.
Where all 100 ft of sand is fully cored,
taking one core plug from every foot would
result in a volume of6.8xlO- 2 ft3, and
the well-test/core-volume ratio would then
be 4.6 x 10 9 . Furthermore, the well-
test/log volume ratio would then be
9.33x10 5 .
The scale relationship between the well-
test and other permeabilities can be further
established through the standard-deviation
concept illustrated in Eq. 7. Therefore, the
theoretical standard deviations of core-
measured and log-inferred permeabilities to
well-test permeability can be expressed as
follows:
(lk(clwt) =2.14 x 10 3 k wt ......... (10)
and (lk(LOGlwt) =9.66x 10 2 k wt · .... (11)
Measurement Environment and Physics.
Because these factors are interrelated, they
are discussed together.
The transient well test is the only method
that allows formation capacity or diffusivity
(a product of average formation permeabil-
ity and the thickness of the responding for-
mation, kfh) measurement at a truly in-situ
condition. Most wireline logging methods
satisfy all in-situ requirements, with the pos-
sible exception of reservoir fluid saturation
(owing to mud filtrate invasion). Superflow
conditions in an RFT test, however, are an
exception to this rule. Most core analyses
are performed at standard bench conditions.
Certain tests are performed at simulated in-
situ effective stress (overburden minus pore
pressure) and possibly temperature; satura-
tion is rarely simulated correctly.
Core Testing. Simulation of appropriate
in-situ temperature does not significantly af-
fect permeability measurement. 29 There-
fore, availability of appropriate temperature
simulation capability is not highly sought.
Pressure effects, however, are significant.
Absence of in-situ pressure conditions can
make laboratory permeability values orders
of magnitude higher. 30 Simulation of
downhole saturation is not a small feat.
Techniques like the pulse-decay method 29
can allow one to measure permeability at a
particular simulated downhole fluid satura-
tion by imposing a pressure pulse smaller
than the capillary pressure. The complicated
nature of the test makes it unusable. A prac-
tical way to incorporate the saturation ef-
fect in the core-analysis method (to report
effective permeability at a certain fluid satu-
ration) is to combine absolute-permeability
measurements at in-situ pressure with rela-
tive-permeability data.
Wireline-Log Analysis. All wireline-log
permeability techniques discussed except
RFT superflow calculate permeability based
on 100% invaded-fluid movement. Thus,
the calculated permeabilities are closer to
invaded-fluid absolute permeabilities as op-
posed to effective permeabilities. To relate
absolute to effective permeability, use the
relative-permeability concepts developed by
Jones 43 and later modified by Coates and
Deno0 9 as follows:
krw=[(Sw-Swi)/(l-Swi)]3 ...... (12)
and krh =(1-Sw)2.1 1(1-Sw;)2, .... (13)
where krh = hydrocarbon relative permea-
bility.
All wireline-log techniques except RFT
infer permeability. Any inference-based
technique is always biased to local environ-
ment. Permeability from wireline logs has
been successful in local basins where repeat-
ed use of the techniques has allowed these
biases to be overcome. Even in the presence
of bias, the wireline permeability calculated
every foot may not agree quantitatively with
another direct measurement; however, it
presents an excellent relative value for cor-
relating between layers or zones.
Well Testing. Transient-well-test interpre-
tation provides formation capacity or diffu-
May 1991 • JPT
sivity. Therefore, to calculate a permeabil-
ity, we need to ascertain the thickness of the POROSITY PRODUCTION
formation that responds to the perturbation
during the test. Typically, openhole logs
INCREASES PROFILE
BPD 4~OO
(gamma ray, spontaneous-potential,
porosity-development) are used to ascertain
formation thickness. The contributing for-
• FLOWMETER?
mation thickness during the test may not cor-
respond to the log-estimated formation
thickness. The only way to solve this prob-
lem accurately is to have a production pro- UP RUN S
file (Fig. 5) of the layer(s) available during
drawdown and production. A gradual slope
J DOWN RUN
of the cumulative production curve (from --t---
bottom to top) indicates uniform production J ;."
through a zone, and an abrupt change
reflects a thin heterogeneous producing lay-
er. With the flow-profile-per-depth informa-
-,- -,--
--r--
---:-/'
+--
----~
I

tion, the transient-diffusivity equation for a

".
.J--- ::::==-0_-
drawdown test can be modified as follows.

+IOg( __ k 2 )3.2275+0.86859Fs J. ZONE"

c!>P.C t rw
................ (14)
Such a formation assumes that the skin
factor is relatively uniform throughout the ZONES
test interval. A plot of flowing BHP vs. the
logarithm of flowing time should be a
straight line with slope m, where

= 162.6BJi :, qi
m I.J ....•..... (15)
k i=! hi

162.6BJi) :, qi
or k= ( I.J - •.•.••.• (16)
m i=! hi
The calculated permeability represents the
formation thickness that responds to the
pressure and rate transients. If necessary,
use an ith-Iayer q and h to evaluate the per-
meability of the specific zone (provided that
no formation crossflow exists).
Table 1 summarizes the relationships
among the various permeability techniques.
Interrelationship. The objective of the in-
terrelationship presented here is to allow
meaningful comparisons of permeabilities.
The discussions on scale factor, measure-
ment environment, and physics show how
to account for differences in permeability es-
timates. Here, we develop a simple relation-
ship that allows meaningful correlations
among well-test and core and log permea-
bility measurements.
The strength of the wireline-Iog permea-
bility data lies in their capability to provide
continuous permeability throughout a par-
ticular interval. In a particular basin, the
ratios of permeability between various zones
and layers are more valuable than the abso-
lute values. Such ratios can be used to corre-
late with core permeability as long as the
scale factor, environment, and physics are
adequately addressed. The layer-by-layer (or
foot-by-foot) permeability from cores and
ONEe
Fig. 5-Productlon profile.
wireline logs may then be related to the well-
test formation diffusivity if a means of per-
meability averaging is chosen. Whether the
averaging should be arithmetic or geometric,
or even harmonic, eludes various reservoir
engineering studies. For layers, however,
the arithmetic average is preferred. 44.45
For vertical wells, use of the layer concept
is an accepted model. Therefore, we pre-
sent the following arithmetic averaging
model to relate core and log permeability
to well-test permeability.
N quality of correlation through the 8,850- to
E Fikih i · .......... (17)
i=!
Field Example.
Example 1. Fig. 6 compare wireline-Iog
values (from empirical correlation and Eq.
12 for effective permeability) and laboratory
measurements at standard ambient condi-
tions. The quality of comparison (standard
deviation) through the 8,550- to 8,700-ft in-
terval is good. Such comparisons are often
found in basins where enough data have
been generated to establish a good value for
the constants in the geophysical equation
(Eqs. 1 through 3). The standard deviation
in the 8,850- to 8,950-ft interval, however,
is not good.
Note that the wireline-Iog values repre-
sent the hydrocarbon effective permeability
at in-situ conditions, whereas the core values
represent the absolute permeability at stan-
dard conditions. The question to ask is, had
we compared apples to apples, would the
8,950-ft interval be improved? Fig. 6 also
represents the comparison where the core-
data measurements were corrected for in-
situ pressure conditions 29 and a 0.7
relative-permeability effect to calculate
hydrocarbon effective permeability. The
quality of comparison has certainly im-
proved throughout all the intervals, especial-
ly through the 8,850- to 8,950-ft interval.
The average zone well-test permeability is
indicated by the bar. With use of produc-

JPT· May 1991 583

 the superflow permeability (238 md). as
TABLE 1_ SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECT ING
PERMEAB ILITY MEASUREMENTS shown in F1g. S.
Also, the superflow RFT permeability

_......
Environment & PhysIcs should be closer to the typical well-test per-
meability. The well-test permeability of the
Pressure &
Technique Scale Temperature SaIu'- ....hod QuantIty zone of interest in the entire basin averages

""'.
AbOOIuto
Maoro<coplc
Ambient· """"...
Relative
Direct
Direct
Panneabillty
Penneabillty
near tOO md. This indicates good basin-wide
agreement. Any agreement, however, be-
tween relatively macroscopic/megascopic
Relative
Wlreline-log
K-+
NML
Megascopic
,
In-situ
AbsoM.
AbooIuto
Indirect
Indirect
Permeability
Permeability
measurement (superflow RFT) and giga-
scopic measurement (well-test) occurs if the
formation or zone is homogeneous. Open-
GLT In-sltu AbsoIuto Indirect Permeability hole logs suggest that the formation is
S_

80_
RFT
"""'"
In-situ

In-situ

,,....
In-situ
AbsoM.

""""...
Relative
Oirect?

0''''''
0'"",
PonneabIHty

ConductIvIty
ConductIvIty
homogeneous, at least vertically (see Fig. 7).

Recommend.tlons

....,,
Well-test Gigascoplc In this study, we concentrated our efforts
Short Relative Oirect Conductivity on defining the correlation axioms between
Classic Relative Direct Conductivity the various permeability sources. Identifi-
""""nood In-situ Relative 0;"", Conductivity cation of areas where the various techniques
stand out uniquely and where any correla-
tion attempt may be futile was not part of
the discuss ion. For example, zone-by-zone
tion profile data, the correlation can be com- log and the RFT pertain to in-situ conditions; permeability from geophysical logs and/or
pleted with Eq. 17, as shown in Fig. 6. however, the pretest RfT technique re- cores may not be quantitatively representa-
sponds to invaded fluid movement and the tive of the formation flow potential and in
Example 2. Fig. 7 pertains to wireline-Iog- supe rflow test pressures respond to places may be uncorrelatable, but these
derived permeability using volumetric anal- hydrocarbon fluid movement. For this rea- values have unique applications (e.g., in the
ysis. RFT data at 6,887 ft includes pretest son, the wireline-log average oil effective decision process to identify the perforation
drawdown and buildup and subsequent long- permeability (265 md), when compared to interval, perforation density, or perforation
term superfJow data. Both the geophysical the RfT results, should correlate better with phasing). We recommend that future studies
concentrate on uncorrelatable sources to
identify unique applications for them. Also,
considering the vastness of the technical area
discussed here, we suggest that studies be
.~
performed to enhance the interrelationships
among the various sources (e.g., in forma-
tions with nonuniform layers or zones).

Conclusions
I. The interrelationships among the geo-
physical wireline-log, core-analysis, and
weJl-test permeabilities depend on three im-
portaru factors: measurement scale, environ-
ment, and physics.
2. Too many correlations are made
wilhout proper regard to these factors, re-
sulting in inadequate answers. Integration
of available information pertaining to these
factors enhances correlation between the
various techniques.
3. Transient well-test data provide the best
quantitative formation permeability if pro-
duction proftle of the formation is available
and single-phase flow is maintained.
4. Geophysical-log and core-analysis per-
meabilities define layer-by-layer (or foot-by-
foot) permeability profiles.

.... _ _ 10 toil '.0.00

....... _ _ _ ... k. t-l
e _Unru--I. Co... P_bWty ( ...d)
"" . Str-d Co ... Efre<:tmo P_blUty (lDd)
Fig. 6-Geophyslcallog interpretation summary, Example 1.
Nomencl.tu...
A g "" surface area of grains exposed
.... w. ... to fluid per unit volume of
solid material
B = FVF, RB/STB
•• f----------------- Bi = mineral constant
c r = system lotal compressibility,
psi - 1
Ii "" weight fraction of each
mineral in solid rock
F "" correction factor for Zone i.
dimensionless (can be

5.< May 1991 eJPT

 Interpretation Summary

Zone Name: BIG:I

Zone Depth: 6850.0 to 6950.0

:"<et Pay 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.0 Feet

Gross Sand Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69.0 Feet
Reservoir Hydrocarbons in Place 1433 bblJ/ AcreoFt
Average Porolity 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.7 %
Average Water Saturation 0 0 33.3 %
A verage Intrinsic Permeability 494.6 Millidarcies
A verage Oil Permeability 264.6 Millidarcies
Average Water Permeability 0 7.0 Millidarcies
Cwnulative Porosity 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Feet
Cwnulatin Hydrocarbon Filled Porolity 0 2.:1 Feet
Cumulative Intrinsic Permeability 0 5935 Millidarcy·Feet
Cwnulative Oil Permeability 0 0 3175 MillidarcyoFeet
Cumulative Water Permeability 0 • 84 MillidarcyoFeet

InllQratad Parm Porosity

PERMEABILITY

I~
c;')
•• _

~
0 011 1'" lOa ~"'4." '. ,", ~.
WATEII oL, ~---,~- ...•., Bound Wst&r
."
D • , " I- ~ _G.!.'l"!... ~O_ Hydrocarbon IWatlf Matrix
r .. 0.-.. -8 ICAL-BS) 12
>; '- I- .... Silt
Gamma Ray : Watar Saturation Effactlve
ci 0 160 10" 0.1 laO "
Poro.ltv
0 60 " 0
Clay

[< '.' r~·' -r-....~­

b 1<·
./j,;.V~ ....
'-1--
111100

, [0. j:':-:- I'

I L·:
I
l.o' I
..~
::::: ~::. : :.:
::: I,
:..-: ,:: -.::-.- i' ,)
i

-:.
I'- /
E~~::,.:.
~
I!. ..-:: la
t:3: ___
~:-.:-::
.:;t..
!) I

-, , I.... \.

Fig. 7-Geophysical log interpretation summary, Example 2.

determined by regression kc = core plug permeability, md k90 = permeability at right angles to

analysis; however, this term is kLOG = log-derived permeability, md maximum permeability, md
1 when well-test h is based on k max = maximum horizontal kf = average formation permeability ,
permeability, md md
production profile)
krh = hydrocarbon relative
kj = average core or wireline log
Fs = van Everdingen-Hurst skin
permeability of Zone i, md
factor, dimensionless permeability, fraction
kR = average reservoir
h = formation thickness, ft krhh = relative permeability thickness- permeability, md
~ = thickness of zone representing averaged by hydrocarbon, kw! = average well-test permeability,
corresponding k j fraction md
permeability, ft krw = water relative permeability, m = slope of linear portion of semilog
IFf = free fluid index fraction plot of pressure-transient data,
k = permeability, md kv = vertical permeability, md psi/cycle

JPT • May 1991 585

 8. Coates, G.R. and Dumanoir, J.L.: "A New
2870.00 Approach to Improved Log Derived Perme-
ability," Proc., SPWLA 14th Annual Log-
ging Symposium, Lafayette (May 6-9, 1973).
20460.00 9. Coates, G. and Denoo, S.: "The Producibil-
ity Answer Product," The Technical Review,
Schlumberger, Houston (June 1981) 29, No.
2,55-63.
20S0.00
10. Morris, R.L. and Biggs, W.P.: "Using Log-
PRESSURE Derived Values of Water Saturation and
SGP -PSIG Porosity," Proc., SPWLA Eighth Annual
1640.00 Logging Symposium, Denver (June 12-14,
1967) Paper X.
11. Watfa, M.: "Seeking the Saturation Solu-
tion," Middle East Well Evaluation Review,
1230.00 Schlumberger Technical Services, Dubai,
U.A.E. (1987) 3, 42-51.
12. Newey, J.J.: "Estimation of Carbonate Per-
820.000 meability Using Well-Logs, San Andres For-
180.0 • 0 0.000 1080.0( mation, Hanford Field, Gaines County ,
Tl"E (SECONDS)
Texas," MS thesis, U. of Texas (Dec. 1987).
13. Timur, A.: "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
CIRCLES REPRESENT PRESSURE HISTORY CO"PUTED IY SUPERPOSITION OF FLOU RATES Study of Carbonate Rocks, " Proc., SPWLA
PER"EAIILITY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 238.06 "D 13th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa
"AlU"U" FLOU RATE ....................... . 100.610 C3 ISECOND (May 7-10, 1972) Paper N.
SA"PLE CHAKIER YOLU"E •••••••••••••••••••• 22000.0 C3 14. Loren, J.D. and Robinson, J.D.: "Relations
PROlE INNER RADIUS ••••••••••••••••••••••• .22 IN Between Pore Size Fluid and Matrix Prop-
POROS lTV ................................. .32
TOTAL CO"PRESSIIILITY OF ROCK AND FLUID •• 1.00000E-S I/PSI erties, and NML Measurements," SPEJ
UATER YlSCOSlTY .......................... .SO CP (1970) 268-78.
15. Neuman, C.H. and Brown, R.J.S.: "Appli-
Fig. a-Pressure history match of superflow data from RFT test, Example 2. cations of Nuclear Magnetism Logging to
Formation Evaluation," IPT (1982) 2853-62.
16. Seevers, D.O.: "A Nuclear Magnetic Method
N = number of flow layers or zones Uk = permeability standard deviation for Determining the Permeability of Sand-
Pbhf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi <P = porosity, fraction stones," Proc., SPWLA Seventh Annual
Pi = initial pressure, psi <P e = effective porosity, fraction Logging Symposium, Tulsa (May 8-11,
b.p = pressure change, psi <Pt = total porosity, fraction 1966) Paper L.
qi = individuallayer/zone flow ~ = average porosity, fraction 17. Kenyon, W.E. et al.: "A Three-Part Study
of NMR Longitudinal Relaxation Properties
rate, STB/D
of Water-Saturated Sandstones," SPEFE
rw = wellbore radius, ft Acknowledgments (Sept. 1988) 622-36.
Rti = resistivity of uninvaded We thank Schlumberger management for al- 18. Banavar, J.R. and Schwartz, L.M.: "Mag-
formation at irreducible lowing this work to be presented as a tech- netic Resonance as a Probe of Permeability
water saturation, {l. m nical paper. We also extend thanks to Mohan in Porous Media," Physical Rev. Letters
(April 1987) 58, No. 14, 1411-14.
Rw = resistivity of formation water, Manohar and Tom Braton for providing in-
19. Herron, M.: "Estimating the Intrinsic Per-
{l·m formation pertaining to the field examples. meability of Clastic Sediments From Geo-
s = sample size Thanks and appreciation are also extended chemical Data," Proc., SPWLA 28th Annual
Sh = thickness-averaged to Lois Cole for her untiring effort in typing Logging Symposium, London (June 29-July
hydrocarbon (oil or gas) and preparing the manuscript. 2, 1987) Paper HH.
20. White, J.E.: Underground Sound: Applica-
saturation at time of test,
References tion o/Seismic Waves, New York City, El-
fraction sevier Science Publishers (1983).
Swi = irreducible water saturation, 1. Allen, D. et al.: "Probing for Permeability: 21. Rosenbaum, J.H.: "Synthetic Microseismo-
fraction An Introduction to Measurements," The grams: Logging in Porous Formations," Geo-
Technical Review, Schlumberger, Houston physics (Feb. 1974) 39, No.1, 14-32.
1/ = spin lattice relaxation time, (Jan. 1988) 6-20.
seconds 22. Chang, S., van derHijden, J., and Orton, M.:
2. Darcy, H.: "Les fontaines publiques de la "Acoustic Waveforms Explained," The
Ip = equivalent production time ville de Dijon," 1856 treatise, Paris. Technical Review, Schlumberger, Houston
before shut-in, hours 3. Carman, P.C.: "Fluid Flow Through Granu- (Jan. 1987) 35, No.1, 16-21.
It = test time, hours lar Beds, " Trans., Inst. Chemical Engineers 23. Burns, D.R. and Cheng, C.H.: "Determina-
III = running testing time, hours (1937) 15, 150-66. tion ofIn-Situ Permeability from Tube Wave
4. Carman, P.C.: "Fundamental Principles of Velocity and Attenuation," Proc., SPWLA
Tm = textural maturity term based Industrial Filtration (A Critical Review of 27th Annual Logging Symposium, Houston
on feldspar content Present Knowledge)," Trans., Inst. Chemi- (June 9-13, 1986) Paper KK.
V = characteristic volume, ft3 cal Engineers (1938) 16, 168-88. 24. Castanga, J.P., Zucker, S.M., and Shoberg,
V bwi = bulk volume irreducible water, 5. Tixier, M.P.: "Evaluation of Permeability T.G.: "Permeability Indication with Conven-
fraction From Electric-Log Resistivity Gradients," tional Sonic Waveforms," Proc., SPWLA
~ = volume represented by a core Oil & Gas I. (June 16, 1949) 48, No.6, 28th Annual Logging Symposium, London
113-22. (June 29-July 2, 1987) Paper MM.
plug, ft3 6. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.D.: "Some 25. Cheruvier, E. and Winkler, K.W.: "Field
VLOG = volume represented by a Theoretical Considerations Related to Quan- Example of In-Situ Permeability Indication
typical permeability-related titative Evaluation of Physical Characteristics from Full Acoustic Wavetrains," Proc.,
petrophysical log, ft3 of Reservoir Rock From Electrical Log SPWLA 28th Annual Logging Symposium,
Vwt = volume represented by a Data," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 105-18. London (June 29-July 2, 1987) Paper NN.
typical well test, ft3 7. Timur, A.: "An Investigation of Permeabil- 26. Smolen, J.J. and Litsey, L.R.: "Formation
ity, Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Evaluation Using Wireline Formation Tester
'T/ = (kh)wt=well-test formation Relationships," Proc., SPWLA Ninth Annual Pressure Data," JPT(Jan. 1979) 25-32.
diffusivity, md-ft Logging Symposium, New Orleans (June 27. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, lA., and Pirard, Y.M.:
Ii = average fluid viscosity, cp 23-26, 1968) Paper K. "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test In-

586 May 1991 • JPT

 terpretation," SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302;
Trans., AIME, 287.
28. Stewart, F. and Wittmann, M.: "Interpreta-
tion of the Pressure Response of the Repeat
Fonnation Tester, " paper SPE 8362 present-
ed at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Sept. 23-26.
29. Brace, W.F., Walsh, J.B., and Francos,
W.T.: "Permeability of Granite Vnder Pres-
sure," J. Geophys. Res. (1968) 69, 259-73.
30. Ahmed, V., Abou-Sayed, A.S., and Jones,
A.H.: "Experimental Evaluation of Fractur-
ing Fluid Interaction with Tight Reservoir
Rocks and PropPe<! Fractures," paper SPE
7922 available at SPE, Richardson, TX.
31. Klinkenberg, L.J.: "The Permeability of
Porous Media to Liquids and Gases," Drill.
& Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1941) 200.
32. Schlumberger Cased Hole Log Interpretation
Principles/Applications, Schlumberger,
Houston (1989) 4-23.
33. Ear10ugher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test
Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richard-
son, TX (1977) 5.
34. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D., and Chauvel, Y.:
"Impulse Testing," SPEFE (Sept. 1988)
534-46.
35. Ahmed, V., Hubbard, J., and Tariq, S.:
"Quick-Look Prestimulation Well Test,"
paper SPE 18949 presented at the 1989 Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reser-
voirs Symposium, Denver, March 6-8.
36. Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of
Simultaneously Measured Pressure Sandface
Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," JPT
(Feb. 1985) 323-34.
37. Ahmed, V., Kuchuk, F., and Ayestaran, L.:
"Short-Term Transient-Rate and Pressure-
Buildup Analysis of Low-Permeability Reser-
voirs," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 611-17.
38. Kueuk, F.J., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran,
L.: "Well Testing and Analysis Techniques
for Layered Reservoirs," SPEFE (Aug. 1986)
342-54.
39. Ehlig-Economides, C.: "Process for Meas-
uring Flow and Determining the Parameter
of Multilayer Hydrocarbon Producing For-
mation," V.S. Patent No. 4,803,873 (Feb.
1989).
40. Piers, G.E., Perkins, J., and Escott, D.: "A
New Flowmeter for Production Logging and
JPT • May 1991
Well Testing," paper SPE 16829 presented
at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
41. Haldorsen, H.H.: "Simulator Parameter As-
signment and the Problem of Scale in Reser-
voir Engineering, " Reservoir Characteriza-
tion, L.W. Lake and H.B. Carroll Jr. (eds.),
Academic Press Inc., Orlando, FL (1986)
293-340.
42. Collins, R.E.: "Flow of Fluids Through
Porous Materials," PennWell Publishing
Co., Tulsa (1961) 66-69.
43. Jones, P.J.: "Production Engineering and
Reservoir Mechanics-Oil, Condensate, and
Natural Gas," Oil & Gas J. (i945) 45-46.
44. "Method for Analyzing Thinly Bedded Sandi
Shale Formation," European Patent Appli-
cation No. 87200900-6, Shell Inti. Research
Mij. B.V., The Hague, 1987.
45. Quintard, M. and Whittaker, S.: "Two-Phase
Flow in Heterogeneous Porous Media: The
Method of Large Scale Averaging," Trans-
port in Porous Media (1988) 3, 357-413.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
aere x 4.046 873 E-oi = ha
atm x I. 013 250* E+05 = Pa
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol = m'
ep x 1.0* E+OO = mPa·s
ft x 3.048" E-Ol = m
ft' x 2.831 685 E-02 = m'
in. x 2.54* E+OO = em
in.' x 6.451 6* E+OO = em'
psi x 6.894 757 E-Ol = kPa
* Conversion factor is exact.
Provenance
Original SPE manuscript, Permeability Es-
timation: The Various Sources and Their
Interrelationship, received for review Oct.
9, 1989. Paper accepted for publication Feb.
8, 1990. Revised manuscript received Dec.
12, 1990. Paper (SPE 19604) trrst presented
at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition held in San Antonio,
Oct. 8-11.
JPT
587